Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Long-term results of regenerative treatment of intrabony defects: a cohort study with 5-year follow-up.
Lee, Jae-Hong; Jeong, Seong-Nyum.
Afiliação
  • Lee JH; Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Institute of Oral Bioscience; Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonbuk National University, 567 Baekje-daero, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju, 54896, Korea. ljaehong@gmail.com.
  • Jeong SN; Department of Periodontology, Daejeon Dental Hospital, Institute of Wonkwang Dental Research, Wonkwang University College of Dentistry, Daejeon, Korea.
BMC Oral Health ; 24(1): 34, 2024 01 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38184515
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and survival of teeth in periodontal regenerative treatment of intrabony defects using combined enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) and deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) compared to EMD alone.

METHODS:

A total of 333 intrabony defects in 176 patients (mean age 54.7 ± 8.9 years) were followed-up for 58.6 ± 11.2 (range, 25-78) months after periodontal regenerative treatment. Changes in clinical (pocket probing depth and clinical attachment level) and radiographic (defect depth and defect width) parameters were analyzed using serial periapical radiographs. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses for tooth loss were also performed.

RESULTS:

Compared to periodontal surgery with EMD alone with a mean follow-up of 5 years, combined EMD and DPBM showed significantly better gain in clinical attachment level (EMD and DPBM 2.8 ± 2.3 mm vs. EMD alone 2.2 ± 2.2 mm) and reduction in probing pocket depth (EMD and DPBM 2.8 ± 1.8 mm vs. EMD alone 2.3 ± 1.8 mm), defect depth (EMD and DPBM 2.5 ± 2.4 mm vs. EMD alone 2.0 ± 2.4 mm) and defect width (EMD and DPBM 0.6 ± 1.0 mm vs. EMD alone 0.2 ± 1.3 mm). The overall survival rates of the teeth were 91.48% and 95.20% in the patient- and tooth-based analyses, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS:

Within the limitations of the current study, combined EMD and DPBM offered additional clinical and radiographic benefits over a mean of 5 years compared to EMD alone. However, tooth loss did not differ significantly between the two groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Compared to EMD alone, combined EMD and DPBM for intrabony defects has additional clinical advantages; however, patient- and tooth-related risk factors must be considered when performing periodontal regenerative surgery.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Perda de Dente Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Animals / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Perda de Dente Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Animals / Humans / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: BMC Oral Health Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article
...