Periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects with resorbable and non-resorbable membranes: 30-month results

被引:64
|
作者
Christgau, M [1 ]
Schmalz, G [1 ]
Wenzel, A [1 ]
Hiller, KA [1 ]
机构
[1] AARHUS UNIV, ROYAL DENT COLL, DEPT ORAL RADIOL, DK-8000 AARHUS C, DENMARK
关键词
periodontitis; therapy; guided tissue regeneration; membranes; polyglactin-910; e-PTFE; radiography; subtraction technique;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb01179.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The aim of this prospective split-mouth-study was to compare the healing results in intrabony defects 12 and 30 months after placement of resorbable (polyglactin-910) and non-resorbable (e-PTFE) GTR-membranes. 11 healthy patients with 30 defects participated. 10 patients with 10 pairs of contralateral lesions, which were treated with both membrane types, were included in the split-mouth-design. Furthermore, in an additional group-design all 30 (16 polyglactin-910 and 14 e-PTFE) treated sites were evaluated, Clinical examinations (PBI, REC, PPD PAL) and radiographic examinations were carried out under standardized conditions immediately before as well as 12 and 30 months after surgery. Additionally, for the assessment of the effectiveness of the 2 membranes by comparing the regeneration results of different defects, the vertical relative attachment gain (V-rAG) was calculated as a % of the PAL gain related to the maximum possible attachment gain (expressed by the baseline depth of the osseous defect intraoperatively measured). Digital subtraction radiography (DSR) was carried out for the quantitative assessment of bone density changes due to GTR. In the split-mouth-design, both types of membranes provided significant V-rAGs (median) after 12 months (polyglactin: 81.7%; e-PTFE: 100.0%) and after 30 months (polyglactin: 69.1%; e-PTFE: 83.8%) compared to baseline. In 90.0% of the polyglactin and e-PTFE sites, a probing attachment gain of at least; 2 mm was maintained over the 30-month period. However, in 2 polyglactin treated sites, and 5 e-PTFE treated sites, a new attachment loss was found between 12 and 30 months. DSR showed bone density gain 12 and 30 months postsurgically. No statistically significant differences could be observed between the 2 membrane materials with regard to clinical and radiographic findings. This was confirmed when considering the total number of defects (group-design). In conclusion, based on this 30-month-study resorbable polyglactin membranes may be regarded as a useful alternative to the well established e-PTFE membranes for the treatment of intrabony defects.
引用
收藏
页码:17 / 27
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] PERIODONTAL REGENERATION USING RESORBABLE AND NON-RESORBABLE MEMBRANES IN LABIAL DEHISCENCES
    SIEBOLD, A
    PRETORIUS, JA
    GERMISHUYS, PJ
    BOTHA, SJ
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1995, 74 (03) : 1011 - 1011
  • [2] PERIODONTAL REGENERATION USING RESORBABLE AND NON-RESORBABLE MEMBRANES IN CLASS-II FURCATION DEFECTS
    SIEBOLD, A
    PRETORIUS, JA
    GERMISHUYS, PJ
    BOTHA, SJ
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1995, 74 (03) : 1022 - 1022
  • [3] Treatment of intrabony defects with resorbable materials, non-resorbable materials and flap debridement
    Zybutz, MD
    Laurell, L
    Rapoport, DA
    Persson, GR
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2000, 27 (03) : 169 - 178
  • [4] Periodontal regeneration of intrabony defects with a resorbable membrane.
    Lombardo, G
    Santi, E
    Bernini, R
    Urbani, G
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 869 - 869
  • [5] Comparison between resorbable and non-resorbable barriers in GTR for human intrabony defects.
    Teparat, T
    Claman, LJ
    Beck, FM
    Solt, CW
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1997, 76 : 795 - 795
  • [6] Clinical comparison of resorbable and non-resorbable barriers for guided periodontal tissue regeneration
    Caffesse, RG
    Mota, LF
    Quinones, CR
    Morrison, EC
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 24 (10) : 747 - 752
  • [7] Assessment of guided tissue regeneration procedures in intrabony defects with bioabsorbable and non-resorbable barriers
    Weltman, R
    Trejo, PM
    Morrison, E
    Caffesse, R
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 68 (06) : 582 - 590
  • [8] Guided bone regeneration in the treatment of segmental diaphyseal defects: A comparison between resorbable and non-resorbable membranes
    Nasser, NJ
    Friedman, A
    Friedman, M
    Moor, E
    Mosheiff, R
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2005, 36 (12): : 1460 - 1466
  • [9] Complications in guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes
    Fontana, F.
    Berardinelli, F.
    Simion, M.
    DENTAL CADMOS, 2012, 80 (06) : 321 - 330
  • [10] Evaluation of efficacy of non-resorbable membranes compared to resorbable membranes in patients undergoing guided bone regeneration
    Patil, Shankargouda
    Bhandi, Shilpa
    Bakri, Mohammed Mousa H.
    Albar, Dhalia H.
    Alzahrani, Khalid J.
    Al-Ghamdi, Mohammad S.
    Alnfiai, Mrim M.
    Tovani-Palone, Marcos Roberto
    HELIYON, 2023, 9 (03)