Clinical evaluation of the Er:YAG laser in combination with an enamel matrix protein derivative for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects:: a pilot study

被引:27
|
作者
Schwarz, F
Sculean, A
Georg, T
Becker, J
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, W Deutsch Kieferklin, Dept Oral Surg, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Johannes Gutenberg Univ Mainz, Dept Periodontol & Operat Dent, D-6500 Mainz, Germany
[3] Univ Saarland, Inst Med Biometr Epidemiol & Med Informat, D-6650 Homburg, Germany
关键词
clinical trial; enamel proteins; intrabony defects; lasers/therapeutic use; periodontal regeneration;
D O I
10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.00412.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the combination therapy of deep intrabony periodontal defects using an Er:YAG laser (ERL) and enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) to scaling and root planing+ ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)+EMD. Material and Methods: Twenty-two patients with chronic periodontitis, each of whom displayed 1 intrabony defect, were randomly treated with access flap surgery and defect debridement with an Er:YAG (160 mJ/pulse, 10 Hz) plus EMD (test) or with access flap surgery followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) with hand instruments plus EDTA and EMD (control). The following clinical parameters were recorded at baseline and at 6 months: plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. Results: Healing was uneventful in all patients. At 6 months after therapy, the sites treated with ERL and EMD showed a reduction in mean PD from 8.6+/-1.2 mm to 4.6+/-0.8 mm and a change in mean CAL from 10.7+/-1.3 mm to 7.5+/-1.4 mm (p<0.001). In the group treated with SRP+EDTA+EMD, the mean PD was reduced from 8.1+/-0.8 mm to 4.0+/-0.5 mm and the mean CAL changed from 10.4+/-1.1 mm to 7.1+/-1.2 mm (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control group. Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it may be concluded that both therapies led to short-term improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and the combination of ERL and EMD does not seem to improve the clinical outcome of the therapy additionally compared to SRP+EDTA+EMD.
引用
收藏
页码:975 / 981
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Four-year results following treatment of intrabony periodontal defects with an enamel matrix protein derivative: A report of 46 cases
    Sculean, A
    Chiantella, GC
    Miliauskaite, A
    Brecx, M
    Arweiler, NB
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2003, 23 (04) : 345 - 351
  • [22] Enamel matrix derivative alone or in combination with a bioactive glass in wide intrabony defects
    Bahar Kuru
    Selçuk Yılmaz
    Kılıçaslan Argın
    Ülkü Noyan
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2006, 10 : 227 - 234
  • [23] Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in controlled diabetic patients with an enamel matrix derivative: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial
    Cimoes, Renata
    Santiago, Leogenes M.
    Caldas Junior, Arnaldo de Franca
    Farias Vajgel, Bruna de Carvalho
    Perussolo, Jeniffer
    Donos, Nikolaos
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 26 (03) : 2479 - 2489
  • [24] Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in controlled diabetic patients with an enamel matrix derivative: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial
    Renata Cimões
    Leógenes M. Santiago
    Arnaldo de França Caldas Júnior
    Bruna de Carvalho Farias Vajgel
    Jeniffer Perussolo
    Nikolaos Donos
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2022, 26 : 2479 - 2489
  • [25] Enamel matrix derivative alone or in combination with a bioactive glass in wide intrabony defects
    Kuru, Bahar
    Yilmaz, Selcuk
    Argin, Kihcaslan
    Noyan, Uelkue
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2006, 10 (03) : 227 - 234
  • [26] Comparative study of DFDBA in combination with enamel matrix derivative versus DFDBA alone for treatment of periodontal intrabony defects at 12 months post-surgery
    Aspriello, Simone Domenico
    Ferrante, Luigi
    Rubini, Corrado
    Piemontese, Matteo
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2011, 15 (02) : 225 - 232
  • [27] Comparative study of DFDBA in combination with enamel matrix derivative versus DFDBA alone for treatment of periodontal intrabony defects at 12 months post-surgery
    Simone Domenico Aspriello
    Luigi Ferrante
    Corrado Rubini
    Matteo Piemontese
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2011, 15 : 225 - 232
  • [28] Clinical safety of enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN(R)) in the treatment of periodontal defects
    Zetterstrom, O
    Andersson, C
    Eriksson, L
    Fredriksson, A
    Friskopp, J
    Heden, G
    Jansson, B
    Lundgren, T
    Nilveus, R
    Olsson, A
    Renvert, S
    Salonen, L
    Sjostrom, L
    Winell, A
    Ostgren, A
    Gestrelius, S
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 24 (09) : 697 - 704
  • [29] Healing of human intrabony defects following regenerative periodontal therapy with an enamel matrix protein derivative alone or combined with a bioactive glass - A controlled clinical study
    Sculean, A
    Pietruska, M
    Schwarz, F
    Willershausen, B
    Arweiler, NB
    Auschill, TM
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2005, 32 (01) : 111 - 117
  • [30] Histologic evaluation of human intrabony defects following non-surgical periodontal therapy with and without application of an enamel matrix protein derivative
    Sculean, A
    Windisch, P
    Keglevich, T
    Gera, I
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2003, 74 (02) : 153 - 160