Two-year randomized clinical trial of enamel matrix derivative treated infrabony defects: radiographic analysis

BMC Oral Health

Luiz Antônio Pugliesi Alves de Lima¹  Cláudio Mendes Pannuti¹  Marina Clemente Conde¹  Ivan Munhoz Pasin¹  Daniela Chambrone¹  Mariana Schutzer Ragghianti Zangrando¹ 

[1] School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Lineu Prestes, 2227 Cidade Universitária, 05508-000 São Paulo, SP, Brazil

关键词: Infrabony defect;    Randomized controlled clinical trial;    Radiographic analysis;    Enamel matrix derivative;    Periodontal regeneration;   

Others  :  1090908
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-14-149

 received in 2014-07-22, accepted in 2014-11-19,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

This split-mouth, double-blind randomized controlled trial evaluated radiographic changes in infrabony defects treated with open flap debridement (OFD) or OFD associated with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) after a 24–month follow-up. The radiographic distance from the CEJ to the bottom of the defect (BD) was considered the primary outcome. CEJ-BC and defect angle were secondary outcomes.

Methods

Ten patients presenting 2 or more defects were selected. An individualized film holder was used to take standardized radiographs of the 43 defects, at baseline and after 24 months. Images were digitized and used to measure the distances from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar crest (AC), CEJ to the bottom of the defect (BD) and infrabony defect angle. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS for Windows (version 5.2). Paired samples t test was used to compare test and control groups and to evaluate changes within each group. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05%.

Results

After 24 months, a significant crestal bone loss was observed for EMD (1.01 mm; p = 0.049) but not for OFD (0.14 mm; p = 0.622). However, no differences were detected between groups (p = 0.37). Reduction of the bone defect depth was significant for OFD (0.70 mm; p = 0.005) but not for EMD (0.04 mm; p = 0.86), while no differences were detected between them (p = 0.87). Both EMD (0.69°; p = 0.82) and OFD (5.71°; p = 0.24) showed an improvement in defect angle measurements but no significant differences were observed after 24 months or between the groups (p = 0.35).

Conclusion

Linear radiographic analysis was not able to demonstrate superiority of EMD treated infrabony defects when compared to ODF after 24 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02195765. Registered 17 July 2014.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ragghianti Zangrando et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]American Academy of Periodontology: Glossary of Periodontal Terms. 4th edition. Chicago: American Academy of Periodontology; 2001:44.
• [2]Hoang AM, Oates TW, Cochran DL: In vitro wound healing responses to enamel matrix derivative. J Periodontol 2000, 71:1270-1277.
• [3]Hammarström L: Enamel matrix, cementum development and regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 1997, 24:658-668.
• [4]Kalpidis CDR, Ruben MP: Treatment of infrabony periodontal defects with enamel matrix derivative: a literature review. J Periodontol 2002, 73:1360-1376.
• [5]Heijl L, Heden G, Svärdström G, Ostgren A: Enamel matrix derivative (EMDOGAIN®) in the treatment of infrabony periodontal defects. J Clin Periodontol 1997, 24:705-714.
• [6]Zetterström O, Andersson C, Eriksson L, Fredriksson A, Friskopp J, Heden G, Jansson B, Lundgren T, Nilveus R, Olsson A, Renvert S, Salonen L, Sjöström L, Winell A, Ostgren A, Gestrelius S: Clinical safety of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) in the treatment of periodontal defects. J Clin Periodontol 1997, 24:697-704.
• [7]Okuda K, Momose M, Miyazaki A, Murata M, Yokoyama S, Yonezawa Y, Wolff LF, Yoshie H: Enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of human infrabony osseous defects. J Periodontol 2000, 71:1821-1828.
• [8]Francetti L, Del Fabbro M, Basso M, Testori T, Weinstein R: Enamel matrix proteins in the treatment of infrabony defects. A prospective 24-month clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2004, 31:52-59.
• [9]Rösing CK, Aass AM, Mavropoulos A, Gjermo P: Clinical and radiographic effects of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of infrabony periodontal defects: a 12-month longitudinal placebo-controlled clinical trial in adult periodontitis patients. J Periodontol 2005, 76:129-133.
• [10]Chambrone D, Pasin IM, Conde MC, Panutti C, Carneiro S, Lima LA: Effect of enamel matrix proteins on the treatment of infrabony defects: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial study. Braz Oral Res 2007, 21:241-246.
• [11]Grusovin MG, Esposito M: The efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for the treatment of deep infrabony periodontal defects: a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2009, 2:43-54.
• [12]Chambrone D, Pasin I, Chambrone L, Pannuti CM, Conde MC, Lima LA: Treatment of infrabony defects with and without enamel matrix proteins: 24-month follow-up randomized pilot study. Quintessence Int 2010, 41:125-134.
• [13]Ribeiro FV, Casarin RC, Júnior FH, Sallum EA, Casati MZ: The role of enamel matrix derivative protein in minimally invasive surgery in treating intrabony defects in single-rooted teeth: a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 2011, 82:522-532.
• [14]Bhutda G, Deo V: Five years clinical results following treatment of human intra-bony defects with an enamel matrix derivative: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Odontol Scand 2013, 71:764-770.
• [15]Reddy MS, Jeffcoat MK: Methods of assessing periodontal regeneration. Periodontology 2000 1999, 19:87-103.
• [16]Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Papanikolaou N, Coulthard P, Worthington HV: Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in infrabony defects. Cochrane Database Syst RevThe Cochrane Library (Issue 6):Art. No. CD003875. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003875.pub2
• [17]Armitage GC: International workshop for a classification of periodontal diseases and conditions. Ann Periodontol 1999, 4:1-6.
• [18]O’Leary TJ, Rudd KD: An instrument for measuring horizontal mobility. Periodontics 1963, 1:249.
• [19]O’Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE: The plaque control record. J Periodontol 1972, 43:38.
• [20]Björn H, Halling A, Thyberg H: Radiographic assessment of marginal bone loss. Odontol Revy 1969, 20:165-179.
• [21]Steffensen B, Weber HP: Relationship between radiographic periodontal defect angle and healing after treatment. J Periodontol 1989, 60:248-253.
• [22]Tonetti MS, Pini-Prato G, Cortellini P: Effect of cigarette smoking on long -term clinical results of infrabony defects treated with regenerative therapy: a preliminary retrospective study. J Clin Periodontol 1995, 22:229-234.
• [23]Christgau M, Wenzel A, Hiller KA, Schmalz G: Quantitative digital subtraction radiography for assessment of bone density changes following periodontal guided tissue regeneration. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996, 25:25-33.
• [24]Eickholz P, Hausmann E: Evidence for healing of interproximal infrabony defects after conventional and regenerative therapy: digital radiography and clinical measurements. J Periodontol Res 1998, 33:156-165.
• [25]Zanatta FB, Souza FG, Pinto TMP, Antoniazzi RP, Rösing CK: Do the clinical effects of enamel matrix derivatives in infrabony defects decrease overtime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Braz Dent J 2013, 24:446-455.
• [26]Gestrelius S, Andersson C, Johansson AC, Persson E, Brodin A, Rydhag L, Hammarström L: Formulation of enamel matrix derivative for surface coating: kinectics and cell colonization. J Clin Periodontol 1997, 24:678-684.
• [27]Hama H, Azuma H, Seto H, Kido J, Nagata T: Inhibitory effect of enamel matrix derivative on osteoblastic differentiation of rat calvaria cells in culture. J Periodontol Res 2008, 43:179-185.
• [28]Plachokova AS, Dolder J, Jansen JA: The bone-regenerative properties of Emdogain adsorbed onto poly (D, L-lactic-coglycolic acid)/calcium phosphate composites in an ectopic and an orthotopic rat model. J Periodontol Res 2008, 43:55-63.
• [29]Windisch P, Sculean A, Klein F, Tóth V, Gera I, Reich E, Eickholz P: Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects. J Periodontol 2002, 73:409-417.
• [30]Lindhe J, Nyman S, Karring T: Connective tissue reattachment as related to presence or absence of alveolar bone. J Clin Periodontol 1984, 11:33-40.
• [31]Tonetti MS, Lang NP, Cortellini P, Suvan JE, Adriaens P, Dubravec D, Fonzar A, Fourmousis I, Mayfield L, Rossi R, Silvestri M, Tiedemann C, Topoll H, Vangsted T, Wallkamm B: Enamel matrix proteins in the regenerative therapy of deep infrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol 2002, 29:317-325.
• [32]Cortellini P, PiniPrato GP, Tonetti MS: Long-term stability of clinical attachment following guided tissue regeneration and conventional therapy. J Clin Periodontol 1996, 23:106-111.
• [33]Trombelli L, Kim CK, Zimmerman GJ, Wikesjö UM: Retrospective analysis of factors related to clinical outcome of guided tissue regeneration procedures in intra- bony defects. J Clin Periodontol 1997, 24:366-371.