
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare, retrospectively, the outcome of two different periodontal regeneration procedures in patients suffering from aggressive periodontitis (AgP). Twenty-eight patients were diagnosed with AgP, suffering from several intra-bony defects (IBD); that were treated by one of two periodontal regeneration techniques randomly assigned to each patient: a. guided tissue regeneration (GTR) or b. an application of extracted enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) combined with demineralized bone xenograft particles (DBX). Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival recession were recorded. Pre-treatment and follow-up (up to 10 years from the surgery) recordings were analyzed statistically within and between groups. A significant reduction was shown at time on PPD and CAL values, however, not between subject groups. CAL values decreased in all sites. At the EMD group (44 sites), CAL gain was 1.92 mm (±1.68) from pre-treatment to follow-up (p < 0.001) and at the GTR group (12 sites) CAL gain of 2.27 (±1.82) mm. In conclusion, 1–10 years observations have shown that surgical treatment of AgP patients by either GTR or by application of EMD/DBX results in similar successful clinical results.
guided tissue regeneration (GTR), dentistry, Dentistry, periodontal regeneration, RK1-715, deproteinized bovine bone, enamel matrix derivatives (Emdogain®), Review, aggressive periodontitis
guided tissue regeneration (GTR), dentistry, Dentistry, periodontal regeneration, RK1-715, deproteinized bovine bone, enamel matrix derivatives (Emdogain®), Review, aggressive periodontitis
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).  | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.  | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).  | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.  | Average | 
