Treatment of Class II Furcation Involvements in Humans With Bioresorbable and Nonresorbable Guided Tissue Regeneration Barriers. A Randomized Multi‐Center Study

Abstract

In this multi-center study 38 patients with contralateral molar Class II furcation defects were treated with GTR therapy using a bioresorbable matrix barrier (test) and a nonresorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) barrier (control). Following flap elevation, scaling, root planing, and removal of granulation tissue, each device was adjusted to cover the furcation defect. The flaps were repositioned and sutured to complete coverage of the barriers. A second surgical procedure was performed at control sites after 4 to 6 weeks to remove the nonresorbable barrier. Before treatment and 12 months postsurgery all patients were examined and probing depths, clinical attachment levels, and position of the gingival margin were recorded. The primary response variable was the change in clinical attachment level in a horizontal direction (CAL-H change). Both treatment procedures reduced the probing depths (P < or = 0.001). Statistically significant gain of clinical attachment level in both horizontal and vertical direction was found at the test sites. At control sites gain of attachment in horizontal direction was statistically significant. The gain of CAL-H was 2.2 mm at test sites compared to 1.4 mm at control sites (P < or = 0.05). At test sites, the gingival margin was maintained close to the pre-surgical level (0.3 mm), whereas at control sites gingival recession was evident (0.9 mm), the difference being statistically significant (P < or = 0.01). Postsurgical complications, such as swelling and pain were more frequent following the control treatment (P < or = 0.05).

Horizontal Alveolar Bone Loss and Vertical Bone Defects in an Adult Patient Population

“…However, it is likely that several of the identified furcation defects could be suitable for surgical regenerative procedures. [41][42][43][44] In conclusion, the present radiographie study demonstrated that alveolar bone loss in subjects seeking dental care at the School of Dentistry in Seattle was limited. The PERSSON, HÜLLENDER, LAURELL, PERSSON 355 data indicated that 15% of the subjects had experienced bone loss that might be of clinical concern.…”

Comparative study of two collagen membranes for guided tissue regeneration therapy in periodontal intrabony defects: a randomized clinical trial

“…In this study, the radiographic bone fill was statistically significant compared to baseline in all treatment groups without a significant difference between the test and control groups. In the evaluation of periodontal regeneration, the formation of new periodontal attachment and the formation of new bone have to be separately evaluated, since they seem to be unrelated events [26]. A GTR device (a porous nonchemical cross-linking membrane) was evaluated previously in one-wall intrabony defects in beagle dogs [17].…”

Comparison of platelet pellet and bioactive glass in periodontal regenerative therapy

“…A polylactic acid barrier was selected as the GTR membrane because the data have demonstrated that this type of barrier is successful in regenerative periodontal therapy [30 Á35] and shows effective clinical results like non-absorbable barriers [36,37]. Polylactic acid barrier is easily adapted to the defect and absorbs by hydrolysis with the rate controlled [34,35].…”