Clinical comparison of resorbable and nonresorbable Barrier in guided tissue regeneration of human intrabony defects.
10.5051/jkape.1999.29.1.193
- Author:
Yin Shik HUR
1
;
Young Hyuk KWON
;
Man Sup LEE
;
Joon Bong PARK
;
Yeek HERR
Author Information
1. Department of Periodontology, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Controlled Clinical Trial ; Original Article ; Clinical Trial ; Randomized Controlled Trial
- Keywords:
guided tissue regeneration;
infrabony defect;
probing pokcet depth;
clinical attachment level;
tooth mobility
- MeSH:
Gingival Recession;
Guided Tissue Regeneration*;
Humans*;
Methods;
Tooth Mobility;
Transplants
- From:The Journal of the Korean Academy of Periodontology
1999;29(1):193-207
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of guided tissue regeneration(GTR) using a resorbable barrier manufactured from an copolymer of polylactic acid (PLA) and polylactic-glycolic acid(PLGA) with those of nonresorbable ePTFE bdmer. Thirty two patients(25 to 59 years old) with one radiographically evident intrabony lesion of probing depth > or =6mm participated in a Gmonth controlled clinical trial. The subjects were randomly divided into three independent groups. The fist group(n=8) received a ePTFE barrier. The second group (n=12) received a resorbable PLA/PLGA barrier. The third group (n=12) received a resorbable PLA/PLGA barrier combined with an alloplastic bone graft. Plaque index (PI), gingival index(GI), probing depth(PD) , gingival recession, clinical attachment level(CAL), and tooth mobility were recorded prior to surgery and at 3,6 months postsurgery. Statistical tests used to analyze these data included independent t-test, paired t-test, one-way ANOVA. The results were as follows : 1. Probing depth was significantly reduced in all groups at 3,6 months postsurgery and there were not significant differences between groups. 2. Clinical attachment level was significantly increased in all groups at 3, 6 months postsurgery and there were not significant differences between groups. 3. There were not signifiicant differences in probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, tooth mobility between second group (PLA/PLGA barrier) and third group (PLA/RLGA barrier combined with alloplastic bone graft) 4. Tooth mobility was not significantly increased in all groups at 3,6 months postsurgery and there were not significant differences between groups. In conclusion, PLA/PLGA resorbable barrier has similar clinical potential to ePTFE barrier in GTR procedure of intrabony pockets under the present protocol.
