This study indicates that treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects with EMD is clinically superior to treatment without EMD (open flap debridement) in every parameter evaluated. Re-entry data demonstrate that percent fill of osseous defects treated with EMD compares favorably with the treatment results utilizing bone grafts or membrane barriers, according to published literature.

The purpose of this study was to compare the repair response of bioactive glass synthetic bone graft particles and open debridement in the treatment of human periodontal osseous defects. Fifty-nine defects in 16 healthy adults were selected. Each patient had at least 2 sites with attachment loss of at least 6 mm with clinical and radiographic evidence of intrabony or furcation defects. One to 3 months after cause-related therapy (oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing), the following measurements were recorded prior to surgery: probing depths, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession. Each defect was surgically exposed and measurements made of the alveolar crest height and base of osseous defect. The test defects were implanted with bioactive glass. The other sites served as unimplanted controls. Flaps were sutured at or close to the presurgical level. Radiographs and soft tissue presurgical measurements were repeated at 6, 9, and 12 months. At 12 months all sites were surgically re-entered to record osseous measurements. At the 12-month evaluation, significantly greater mean probing depth reduction was noted in the bioactive glass group compared to the controls (4.26 mm versus 3.44 mm; P = 0.028). Clinical attachment level gain was significantly improved (P = 0.0004) in the bioactive glass sites (2.96 mm) compared to the control sites (1.54 mm). There was significantly less gingival recession in the bioactive glass sites (1.29 mm) compared to the control sites (1.87 mm). Defect fill was significantly greater in the bioactive glass sites (3.28 mm) compared to the control sites (1.45 mm). Defect depth reduction was significantly greater in the bioactive glass sites (4.36 mm) compared to the control sites (3.15 mm). In conclusion, bioactive glass showed significant improvement in clinical parameters compared to open flap debridement.

Animal models are needed to objectively evaluate the pathogenesis of human periodontal diseases and its various treatment modalities. Selection of the appropriate animal model depends on the similarity of the periodontium and the nature of the disease to that of humans. The more commonly used animal models for studying the pathogenesis of periodontal disease, use of implants and guided tissue regeneration have been dogs and nonhuman primates. Periodontal disease in rodents has not been found to be as closely related to the human varieties. Rats and hamsters are best suited for caries and calculus research. Ferrets may be a promising new model for studying periodontal disease and calculus formation. Variables unique to each animal species are manifested by a wide range of clinical and histopathological features. Different species have distinct diets, habits, life spans, tissue structures, host defense mechanisms and genetic traits. This article describes the diversity seen in animal models used to study microbiological, immunological, and clinical features of periodontal disease and its prevention and treatment.

The concept of periodontal reevaluation of initial therapy needs to be revisited. From interviewing selective periodontists and reviewing the literature, it is apparent that the time period to perform a reevaluation is an ambiguous topic. This seems to be a dichotomy because today everything in dental medicine and medicine is evidence based. When reviewing selective literature sources, it was found that either a time period for reevaluation was given that was different in almost every publication, or a time period was not given but the subject of reevaluation was addressed. The objective of this commentary is to define reevaluation and to determine the best time interval after initial therapy to perform a reevaluation based on classic and current literature. Some questions that need to be addressed are the following: 1) Does too short of a time frame for reevaluation lead to the overtreatment of patients? 2) Is there a danger in reevaluating over too long of a time frame that will lead to disease progression and the return of pathogenic microbial flora? This would mean unnecessary periodontal breakdown could be occurring without appropriate further treatment. Many concerns need to be addressed, including when the appropriate time period is to measure the effects of initial therapy. After this time period, the stability of the periodontium should be evaluated rather than the effects of therapy.

No abstract