4.6 Article

Baseline radiographic defect angle of the intrabony defect as a prognostic indicator in regenerative periodontal surgery with enamel matrix derivative

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 643-647

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00555.x

关键词

clinical trial; enamel matrix derivative; periodontal therapy; prognosis; regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The baseline radiographic defect angle has previously been correlated with the clinical outcomes of intrabony defects treated with access flap or guided tissue regeneration. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an association exists between baseline radiographic defect angle and treatment outcome when enamel matrix derivative (EMD) is used in periodontal regenerative surgery. Materials and Methods: Baseline radiographs were collected from the test group of a previously published clinical trial using a population of 166 patients treated for chronic periodontitis. All intrabony defects were greater than or equal to3 mm for inclusion in the original study. Either modified or simplified papilla preservation technique was used to access the defect. The roots were conditioned with an EDTA gel and the primary outcome measure was clinical attachment level (CAL) change, 1 year after surgery. Results: Sixty-seven radiographs were measurable. The probability of obtaining CAL gain >3 mm was 2.46 times higher (95% confidence interval: 1.017-5.970) when the radiographic defect angle was less than or equal to22degrees than when it was greater than or equal to36degrees. Conclusions: This study showed that there was a significant association between baseline radiographic defect angle and CAL gain at 1 year. The observed increased odds ratio of obtaining CAL gain of greater than or equal to4 mm after regenerative surgery with EMD is used in narrow (less than or equal to22degrees) intrabony defects, suggests that the baseline radiographic defect angle might be used as a prognostic indicator of treatment outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据