Tonetti M S, Cortellini P, Suvan J E, Adriaens P, Baldi C, Dubravec D, Fonzar A, Fourmousis I, Magnani C, Muller-Campanile V, Patroni S, Sanz M, Vangsted T, Zabalegui I, Pini Prato G, Lang N P
Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, University of Bern, Switzerland.
J Periodontol. 1998 Nov;69(11):1183-92. doi: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.11.1183.
Several studies have shown that GTR therapy of intrabony defects results in significantly better outcomes than access flap alone. Most of the available data, however, have been produced in highly controlled research environments by a small group of investigators. Generalizability of results to different clinicians and different subject populations has not been evaluated so far.
This parallel group study involved 143 patients recruited in a practice-based research network of 11 offices in 7 countries. It was designed to evaluate: 1) the applicability of the documented added benefits of GTR in the treatment of intrabony defects to different populations, and 2) the generalizability of the expected results to different clinicians. GTR was compared to access flap alone. Defects, one in each patient, were accessed with a previously described papilla preservation flap in both the test and control group. In addition, GTR sites received application of a bioabsorbable poly-D,L-lactide-co-glycolide membrane. A stringent plaque control regimen was enforced in all patients during the 1-year observation period. Outcomes included gains in clinical attachment (CAL) and reductions in probing depth.
Observed gains in CAL were 2.18 +/- 1.46 mm for access flap and 3.04 +/- 1.64 mm for the GTR-treated group. The treatment-associated difference was statistically significant (P = 0.03) after correcting for both center effect and defect anatomy. Among the various centers, a 1.73 mm difference in CAL gain was observed. This is a clinically relevant amount, which underlines the significance of center variability in the outcome of periodontal surgical procedures. A frequency distribution analysis of the obtained CAL gains indicated that GTR treatment of deep intrabony defects decreased, with respect to the access flap control, the probability of obtaining only a modest attachment gain at 1 year. Conversely, CAL gains of 4 mm or more were observed in more than 40% of GTR-treated defects and in less than 20% of the controls (P < 0.0001).
These data indicate that GTR therapy of deep intrabony defects performed by different clinicians on various patient populations resulted in both greater amounts and improved predictability of CAL gains than access flap alone.
多项研究表明,骨内缺损的引导组织再生(GTR)治疗比单纯翻瓣术能产生显著更好的效果。然而,大多数现有数据是由一小群研究人员在高度可控的研究环境中得出的。到目前为止,尚未评估这些结果对不同临床医生和不同受试者群体的可推广性。
这项平行组研究纳入了在7个国家11个诊所的基于实践的研究网络中招募的143名患者。其旨在评估:1)GTR在骨内缺损治疗中已记录的额外益处对不同人群的适用性,以及2)预期结果对不同临床医生的可推广性。将GTR与单纯翻瓣术进行比较。在试验组和对照组中,对每位患者的一处缺损均采用先前描述的乳头保留瓣进行暴露。此外,GTR部位应用了生物可吸收的聚-D,L-丙交酯-共-乙交酯膜。在1年观察期内,对所有患者实施严格的菌斑控制方案。结果包括临床附着水平(CAL)的增加和探诊深度的减小。
单纯翻瓣术组观察到的CAL增加为2.18±1.46mm,GTR治疗组为3.04±1.64mm。在校正中心效应和缺损解剖结构后,治疗相关差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.03)。在各个中心之间,观察到CAL增加存在1.73mm的差异。这是一个具有临床相关性的数值,强调了中心变异性在牙周手术结果中的重要性。对获得的CAL增加进行频率分布分析表明,与单纯翻瓣术对照组相比,GTR治疗深部骨内缺损降低了1年后仅获得适度附着增加的概率。相反,在超过40%的GTR治疗缺损中观察到CAL增加4mm或更多,而在对照组中这一比例不到2%(P < 0.0001)。
这些数据表明,不同临床医生对不同患者群体进行的深部骨内缺损GTR治疗比单纯翻瓣术能带来更大的CAL增加量和更高的可预测性。