Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2003 March;52(3) > Minerva Stomatologica 2003 March;52(3):105-10

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA STOMATOLOGICA

A Journal on Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Odontostomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Indexed/Abstracted in: CAB, EMBASE, Index to Dental Literature, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index


eTOC

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  


Minerva Stomatologica 2003 March;52(3):105-10

language: Italian

Clinical comparison between tissue regeneration with membranes and with enamel matrix derivative

Forabosco A., Spinato S., Diacci S., Grippo A.


PDF  


Aim. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, over a period of 1 y, 3 different surgical methods for the treatment of periodontal bone defects.
Methods. Thirty-six infrabone defects, at least 4 mm in depth, in non-smokers were enrolled in the study. Of these, 12 were treated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using a resorbable membrane with collagen, 12 with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) gel and 12 with a modified Widman flap (MWF). The pocket depth, attachment loss and gingival recession both before commencement of therapy and after an interval of 1 y are reported.
Results. The reduction in pocket depth was 4 mm, 4.4 mm, and 4.5 mm, respectively, for the control group, GTR group and EMD group. The attachment gain for the respective treatments was: MWF, 2 mm; GTR, 2.8 mm; EMD, 2.9 mm. Gingival recession was: MWF, 1.8 mm; GTR, 1.5 mm; EMD, 1.1 mm.
Conclusion. These findings show the efficacy of the 3 methods in the treatment of bone defects, but none of the 3 emerges as being statistically superior to the others 2.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail