Treatment of intrabony defects with an enamel matrix protein derivative or bioabsorbable membrane: an 8-year follow-up split-mouth study.

Contains fulltext : 51094.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Treatments with either an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR) have been shown to promote periodontal regeneration. However, until recently, only limited data have been available on the long-term clinical results following these regenerative techniques. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the 8-year results of a prospective, controlled, split-mouth clinical study evaluating the treatment of intrabony defects with EMD or GTR. METHODS: Ten patients, each of whom displayed one pair of intrabony defects located contralaterally in the same jaw, were randomly treated with EMD or with GTR by means of bioabsorbable membranes. The following clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 1 and 8 years after treatment: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). The primary outcome variable was CAL. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found at baseline. RESULTS: The sites treated with EMD demonstrated a mean CAL change from 9.5 +/- 1.2 mm to 6.3 +/- 1.3 mm (P <0.001) and 6.7 +/- 1.6 mm (P <0.001) at 1 and 8 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 1- and 8-year results. Sites treated with GTR showed a mean CAL change from 9.7 +/- 1.3 mm to 6.7 +/- 0.9 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.8 +/- 1.2 mm (P <0.001) at 8 years. The CAL change between 1 and 8 years did not present statistically significant differences. Between the treatment groups, no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at 1 and at 8 years. However, the study does not have the statistical power to rule out the possibility of a difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the present results indicate the following: 1) the clinical improvements obtained following treatment with EMD or GTR can be maintained over a period of 8 years; and 2) further studies of much higher power need to be performed to support equivalence

Nine-year results following treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with an enamel matrix derivative: report of 26 cases.

Item does not contain fulltextTreatment of intrabony periodontal defects with an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has been demonstrated, in the short term, to result in periodontal regeneration and to significantly improve clinical parameters such as probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). The present study evaluated deep intrabony defect sites at 9 years after treatment with EMD. Twenty-one patients with a total of 26 deep intrabony defects with PD > or = 6 mm and intrabony depth > or = 3 mm, as identified by probing and radiographs, were consecutively treated with EMD. PD, recession of the gingival margin (GR), and CAL were evaluated prior to treatment and at 1 and 9 years after treatment. At 1 year, mean PD was significantly reduced. At 9 years, mean PD was statistically significantly increased versus the 1-year results but still significantly improved versus baseline. After I year, mean GR had increased significantly; at 9 years, measurements showed statistically significant improvements compared to the 1-year results and baseline. The mean CAL changed from 10.0 +/- 2.3 mm at baseline to 6.8 +/- 2.3 mm at 1 year and to 7.0 +/- 1.9 mm at 9 years. No treated teeth were lost during the observation period. The clinical improvements obtained following treatment with EMD can be maintained over a period of 9 years

Differences in efficacy of two commercial 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse solutions: a 4-day plaque re-growth study.

Contains fulltext : 50697.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: The purpose of this clinical cross-over study was to examine the antibacterial and plaque-inhibiting properties of two chlorhexidine solutions compared with a negative control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers refrained from all oral hygiene measures, but rinsed instead twice daily with 10 ml of a conventional chlorhexidine solution (0.2%; CHX), a chlorhexidine solution with anti-discolouration system (ADS) (0.2%, alcohol-free chlorhexidine solution (CSP)) or a placebo solution (Pla). Plaque index (PI), plaque area (PA) and bacterial vitality were assessed after 24 h (PI1, vital flora (VF)1) and 96 h (PI2; VF2, PA). After a 10-day wash-out period, a new test cycle was started. RESULTS: Results for Pla were 0.94, 1.59, 27.4 (PI1, PI2, PA) and 79% and 72% (VF1 and VF2). CSP significantly reduced the parameter PI1, PI2 and PA to 0.67 (p=0.012), 1.0 and 15.7 (p<0.001). VF1 and VF2 (63% and 53%) were not significantly affected. The corresponding figures of CHX were 0.42, 0.43, 6.77, 33 and 16%, which were all significantly lower (all p<0.001). On comparing the two chlorhexidine solutions, CHX showed significantly higher reductions of all parameters. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the 0.2% alcohol-containing solution showed superiority in inhibiting plaque re-growth and reducing bacterial vitality compared with the solution with ADS

Efficacy, side-effects and patients' acceptance of different bleaching techniques (OTC, in-office, at-home).

Item does not contain fulltextThis clinical study compared the efficacy of three different bleaching techniques with respect to the bleaching times required in order to achieve six grades of whitening in human teeth. Any side effects that were noted and the patients' acceptance of the method were recorded by a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 10. Moreover, epoxy casts from the study teeth were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy in order to detect any potential changes in the enamel surface due to treatments. Thirty-nine volunteers participated in the study and were allocated randomly to one of three different bleaching treatments: Group A (n=13) used Whitestrips (over-the-counter technique; one cycle=30 minutes), Group B (n=13) used Opalescence PF 10% (at-home bleaching technique; one cycle=8 hours) and Group C (n=13) used Opalescence Xtra Boost (in-office bleaching technique; one cycle=15 minutes) until a defined whitening of six tabs compared to the baseline were reached (assessed by the VITA shade guide). All three methods achieved six grades of whitening. The mean treatment time required to reach the defined level of whitening was 31.85 +/- 6.63 cycles in Group A, 7.15 +/- 1.86 cycles in Group B and 3.15 +/- 0.55 cycles in Group C. All products differed significantly from each other in terms of treatment cycles and required treatment time (p<0.001 by ANOVA and Mann-Whitney-U-test). Using the VA scale, side effects noted within the three groups were minimal. Tooth hypersensitivity ranged from 2.62 (Whitestrips) to 3.38 (Opalescence PF), and gingival irritation ranged between 0.23 (Opalescence Xtra Boost) and 0.85 (Whitestrips). The most accepted method was the at-home bleaching technique. None of the teeth studied showed detectable enamel surface changes in the subsequent SEM analysis using 200x and 2000x magnification

Four-year results of a prospective-controlled clinical study evaluating healing of intra-bony defects following treatment with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass.

Contains fulltext : 53550.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)AIM: To evaluate the 4-year results following regenerative periodontal surgery at intra-bony defects with either a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) or with EMD alone. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with one deep intra-bony defect each were randomly treated with either an EMD+BG (test) or with EMD alone (control). Measurements were recorded at baseline, at 1 and at 4 years following therapy. The primary outcome variable was the clinical attachment level (CAL). RESULTS: The test group demonstrated a mean CAL change from 10.3+/-1.6 to 6.7+/-1.2 mm (p/=3 mm was found at 4 years in 10 defects in both groups. Between the treatment groups, no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at 1 and at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the clinical improvements obtained with both regenerative modalities can be maintained over a period of 4 years

Healing of human intrabony defects following regenerative periodontal therapy with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass. A controlled clinical study.

Item does not contain fulltextAIM: The purpose of the present study was to compare clinically the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and a bioactive glass (BG) to EMD alone. METHODS: Thirty patients (16 females and 14 males) suffering from advanced marginal periodontitis were included in this prospective, controlled parallel design multicenter study. In each of the patients, one intrabony defect was randomly treated with either EMD+BG (test) or with EMD alone (control). Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 1 year following therapy. RESULTS: No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the test group showed a reduction in mean probing depth (PD) from 8.5+/-1.1 to 4.4+/-1.2 mm (p<0.001) and a change in mean clinical attachment level (CAL) from 10.4+/-1.5 to 7.1+/-1.5 mm (p<0.0001). In the control group, the mean PD was reduced from 8.5+/-1.5 to 4.0+/-1.6 mm (p<0.001) and the mean CAL changed from 10.2+/-2.1 to 6.3+/-2.2 mm (p<0.01). In the test group, 12 sites (80%) gained at least 3 mm or more of CAL, whereas in the control group a CAL gain of 3 mm or more was measured at 13 sites (87%). No statistically significant differences in terms of PD reduction and CAL gain were found between the test and the control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study it can be concluded that: (i) at 1 year after surgery, both therapies resulted in significant PD reductions and CAL gains, and (ii) the combination of EMD+BG does not seem to additionally improve the clinical results

[The use of Emdogain in periodontal and osseous regeneration]

Item does not contain fulltextThe goal of regenerative periodontal therapy is the reconstitution of the lost periodontal structures (i. e. the new formation of root cementum, periodontal ligament and alveolar bone). Results from basic research have pointed to the important role of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) in periodontal wound healing. Histological results from experiments in animals and from human case reports have shown that treatment with EMD promotes periodontal regeneration. Moreover, clinical studies have indicated that treatment with EMD positively influences periodontal wound healing in humans. The goal of the current overview is to present the clinical indications for regenerative therapy with EMD based on the existing evidence

Supra and subgingival application of antiseptics or antibiotics during periodontal therapy

Periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) are characterized by inflammatory processes which arise as a result of disruption of the balance in the oral ecosystem. According to the current S3 level clinical practice guidelines, therapy of patients with periodontitis involves a stepwise approach that includes the control of the patient's risk factors and the debridement of supra and subgingival biofilm. This debridement can be performed with or without the use of some adjuvant therapies, including physical or chemical agents, host modulating agents, subgingivally locally delivered antimicrobials, or systemic antimicrobials. Therefore, the main aim of this article is to review in a narrative manner the existing literature regarding the adjuvant application of local agents, either subgingivally delivered antibiotics and antiseptics or supragingivally applied rinses and dentifrices, during the different steps in periodontal therapy performed in Europe. © 2023 The Authors. Periodontology 2000 published by John Wiley ; Sons Ltd

Effect of platelet-rich plasma on the healing of intrabony defects treated with an anorganic bovine bone mineral and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes.

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Regenerative periodontal therapy with a combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) + an anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) + guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has been shown to result in significantly higher probing depth reductions and clinical attachment level gains compared to treatment with open flap debridement (OFD) alone, ABBM alone, or GTR alone. However, there are no data evaluating to what extent the use of PRP may additionally enhance the clinical outcome of the therapy compared to treatment with ABBM + GTR. This study aimed to clinically evaluate the effect of PRP on the healing of deep intrabony defects treated with ABBM and GTR by means of a non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with advanced chronic periodontal disease and displaying one intrabony defect were randomly treated with a combination of either PRP + ABBM + GTR or ABBM + GTR. The following clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 1 year after treatment: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). The primary outcome variable was CAL. RESULTS: No differences in any of the studied parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with PRP + ABBM + GTR showed a reduction in mean PD from 8.6 +/- 1.7 mm to 3.1 +/- 1.3 mm (P or =3 mm of CAL. CAL gains > or =4 mm were measured in 83% (i.e., in 10 of 12 defects) of the cases treated with PRP + ABBM + GTR and in 92% (i.e., in 11 of 12 defects) treated with ABBM + GTR. No statistically significant differences in any of the studied parameters were observed between the two groups at 1-year reevaluation. CONCLUSION: Within its limits, the present study has shown that, at 1 year after regenerative therapy in periodontal intrabony defects, optimal clinical results were obtained with ABBM + GTR with a non-resorbable barrier, with or without the addition of PRP