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
  • [21] Supported bio-resorbable and non-resorbable membranes for GBR at dental implants.
    Hammerle, CHF
    Dufour, P
    Hockers, T
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2002, 81 : B255 - B255
  • [22] Histological and histomorphometric analysis of bone tissue after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes vs resorbable membranes and titanium mesh
    Cucchi, Alessandro
    Sartori, Maria
    Parrilli, Annapaola
    Aldini, Nicolo N.
    Vignudelli, Elisabetta
    Corinaldesi, Giuseppe
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (04) : 693 - 701
  • [23] Guided tissue regeneration with non-resorbable and biodegradable barriers: 6 months results
    Eickholz, P
    Kim, TS
    Holle, R
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 24 (02) : 92 - 101
  • [24] Long-term evaluation for guided tissue regeneration using non-resorbable membranes
    Takahashi, J
    Saito, A
    Nakagawa, T
    Oshima, M
    Yamanouchi, K
    Yamada, S
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 869 - 869
  • [25] Regenerative periodontal surgery with non-resorbable and biodegradable barriers: results after 24 months
    Eickholz, P
    Kim, TS
    Holle, P
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1998, 25 (08) : 666 - 676
  • [26] Evaluation of guided bone regeneration in rabbit tibia using bioresorbable and non-resorbable membranes
    Piattelli, A
    Scarano, A
    Russo, P
    Matarasso, S
    BIOMATERIALS, 1996, 17 (08) : 791 - 796
  • [27] CLINICAL SPLIT-MOUTH-STUDY ON RESORBABLE VS NON-RESORBABLE GTR-MEMBRANES
    CHRISTGAU, M
    SCHMALZ, G
    REICH, E
    WENZEL, A
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1994, 73 : 285 - 285
  • [28] A comparative clinical study of resorbable membranes in the treatment of intrabony defects and furcations
    Stelzel, M
    Buns, CE
    Macke, S
    Mesinovic, C
    Flores-de-Jacoby, L
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1998, 77 : 868 - 868
  • [29] Biocompatibility of a non-resorbable PTFE Membrane for guided Bone Regeneration
    Jung, O.
    Proehl, A.
    Pantermehl, S.
    Boeckmann, L.
    Emmert, S.
    Barbeck, M.
    JOURNAL DER DEUTSCHEN DERMATOLOGISCHEN GESELLSCHAFT, 2021, 19 : 139 - 139
  • [30] CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHICAL SPLIT-MOUTH STUDY ON RESORBABLE VERSUS NON-RESORBABLE GTR-MEMBRANES
    CHRISTGAU, M
    SCHMALZ, G
    REICH, E
    WENZEL, A
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1995, 22 (04) : 306 - 315