These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison between enamel matrix proteins used alone or in combination with bovine porous bone mineral in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans.
    Author: Lekovic V, Camargo PM, Weinlaender M, Nedic M, Aleksic Z, Kenney EB.
    Journal: J Periodontol; 2000 Jul; 71(7):1110-6. PubMed ID: 10960017.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: It has been shown that clinical improvement of intrabony periodontal defects can be achieved with the use of enamel matrix proteins (EMPs) or by grafting with bovine porous bone mineral (BPBM). There is no report on the potential synergistic effect of EMPs and BPBM in periodontal regenerative therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of EMPs used alone or in combination with BPBM in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects in humans. METHODS: Twenty-one paired intrabony defects were surgically treated using a split-mouth design. Intrabony defects were treated either with enamel matrix proteins (EMP group) or with enamel matrix proteins combined with bovine porous bone mineral (EMP/BPBM group). Re-entry surgeries were performed at 6 months. RESULTS: Preoperative probing depths, attachment levels, and transoperative bone measurements were similar for the EMP and EMP/BPBM groups. Postsurgical measurements taken at 6 months revealed a significantly greater reduction in probing depth in the EMP/BPBM group (3.43 +/- 1.32 mm on buccal sites and 3.36 +/- 1.35 mm on lingual sites) when compared to the EMP group (1.91 +/- 1.42 mm on buccal sites and 1.85 +/- 1.38 mm on lingual sites). The EMP/BPBM group also presented with significantly more attachment gain (3.13 +/- 1.41 mm on buccal sites and 3.11 +/- 1.39 mm on lingual sites) than the EMP group (1.72 +/- 1.33 mm on buccal sites and 1.75 +/- 1.37 mm on lingual sites). Surgical re-entry of the treated defects revealed a significantly greater amount of defect fill in favor of the EMP/BPBM group (3.82 +/- 1.43 mm on buccal sites and 3.74 +/- 1.38 mm on lingual sites) as compared to the EMP group (1.33 +/1.17 mm on buccal sites and 1.41 +/- 1.19 mm on lingual sites). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that BPBM has the ability to augment the effects of EMPs in reducing probing depth, improving clinical attachment levels, and promoting defect fill when compared to presurgical levels.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]