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

Mariana Schutzer Ragghianti Zangrando, Daniela Chambrone, Ivan Munhoz Pasin, Marina Clemente Conde, Cláudio Mendes Pannuti, Luiz Antônio Pugliesi Alves de Lima, Mariana Schutzer Ragghianti Zangrando, Daniela Chambrone, Ivan Munhoz Pasin, Marina Clemente Conde, Cláudio Mendes Pannuti, Luiz Antônio Pugliesi Alves de Lima

Abstract

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.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distance from CEJ to BD.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distance from CEJ to AC.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Angle formed between lines CEJ-BD and CEJ-AC.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Flowchart for study patients.

References

    1. American Academy of Periodontology . Glossary of Periodontal Terms. 4. Chicago: American Academy of Periodontology; 2001. p. 44.
    1. Hoang AM, Oates TW, Cochran DL. In vitro wound healing responses to enamel matrix derivative. J Periodontol. 2000;71:1270–1277. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.8.1270.
    1. Hammarström L. Enamel matrix, cementum development and regeneration. J Clin Periodontol. 1997;24:658–668. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00247.x.
    1. Kalpidis CDR, Ruben MP. Treatment of infrabony periodontal defects with enamel matrix derivative: a literature review. J Periodontol. 2002;73:1360–1376. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.11.1360.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00253.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00252.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.12.1821.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.0303-6979.2004.00437.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.1.129.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1590/S1806-83242007000300009.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100454.
    1. 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. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.728245.
    1. Reddy MS, Jeffcoat MK. Methods of assessing periodontal regeneration. Periodontology 2000. 1999;19:87–103. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.1999.tb00149.x.
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Papanikolaou N, Coulthard P, Worthington HV: Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain®) for periodontal tissue regeneration in infrabony defects.Cochrane Database Syst Rev The Cochrane Library (Issue 6):Art. No. CD003875. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003875.pub2
    1. Armitage GC. International workshop for a classification of periodontal diseases and conditions. Ann Periodontol. 1999;4:1–6. doi: 10.1902/annals.1999.4.1.1.
    1. O’Leary TJ, Rudd KD. An instrument for measuring horizontal mobility. Periodontics. 1963;1:249.
    1. O’Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE. The plaque control record. J Periodontol. 1972;43:38. doi: 10.1902/jop.1972.43.1.38.
    1. Björn H, Halling A, Thyberg H. Radiographic assessment of marginal bone loss. Odontol Revy. 1969;20:165–179.
    1. Steffensen B, Weber HP. Relationship between radiographic periodontal defect angle and healing after treatment. J Periodontol. 1989;60:248–253. doi: 10.1902/jop.1989.60.5.248.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1995.tb00139.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1259/dmfr.25.1.9084282.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1998.tb02306.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201302192.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00249.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2007.01010.x.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.4.409.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1984.tb01306.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051X.2002.290407.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00542.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00199.x.
Pre-publication history
    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj