Cargando…
Long‐term stability of adjunctive use of enamel matrix protein derivative on porcine‐derived xenograft for the treatment of one‐wall intrabony defects: A 4‐year extended follow‐up of a randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: The long‐term outcomes of demineralized porcine bone matrix (DPBM) in combination with enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) for the treatment of one‐wall intrabony defects have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reporte...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290018/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34050681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.21-0254 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: The long‐term outcomes of demineralized porcine bone matrix (DPBM) in combination with enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) for the treatment of one‐wall intrabony defects have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes of regenerative therapy using DPBM with EMD (test group) in comparison with DPBM alone (control group) for the treatment of one‐wall intrabony defects in the molar regions. METHODS: Thirty‐four patients (control group, n = 18, and test group, n = 16) were available at the 4‐year follow‐up assessment. Clinical (probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level [CAL]), radiographic (defect depth and width), and patient‐reported (Oral Health Impact Profile [OHIP]‐14) parameters were evaluated at baseline, 2 years, and 4 years after regenerative treatment. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities, with and without adjunctive use of EMD, resulted in significant improvement of clinical (mean gain in CAL of 1.58 ± 1.34 mm), radiographic (mean defect width fill of 2.41 ± 0.90 mm), and oral health‐related quality of life outcomes at 2 years after regenerative treatment of one‐wall intrabony defects (P < 0.001), which has been sustained over a 4‐year follow‐up period. Particularly, OHIP‐14 scores revealed a statistically significant reduction in physical pain, psychological discomfort, and physical disability (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical, radiographic, and patient‐reported outcomes were significantly improved when DPBM was used in the regenerative treatment, but no additional benefits were observed with the adjunctive use of EMD. |
---|