Deproteinized bovine bone and gentamicin as an adjunct to GTR in the treatment of intrabony defects: a randomized controlled clinical study

Objectives: To evaluate whether Bio-Oss(R) used as an adjunct to guided tissue regeneration (GTR) improves the healing of 1- or 2-wall intrabony defects as compared with GTR alone, and to examine whether impregnation of Bio-Oss(R) with gentamicin may have an added effect. Material and methods: Sixty patients, with at least one interproximal intrabony defect with probing pocket depth (PPD) greater than or equal to7 mm and radiographic evidence of an intrabony component (IC) greater than or equal to4 mm, were treated at random with either a resorbable membrane (GTR), a resorbable membrane in combination with Bio-Oss(R) impregnated with saline (DBB-), a resorbable membrane in combination with Bio-Oss(R) impregnated with gentamicin (DBB+), or with flap surgery (RBF). Results: All treatment modalities resulted in statistically significant clinical improvements after 1 year. Defects treated with GTR alone presented a probing attachment level (PAL) gain of 2.9 mm, a residual PPD (PPD12) of 4.9 mm, a radiographic bone level (RBL) gain of 3.1 mm, and a residual IC (IC12) of 2.7 mm. GTR combined with Bio-Oss(R) did not improve the healing outcome (PAL gain: 2.5 mm; PPD12: 4.9 mm; RBL gain: 2.8 mm; IC12: 3.3 mm). Impregnation of the Bio-Oss(R) with gentamicin 2% mg/ml resulted in clinical improvements (PAL gain: 3.8 mm; PPD12: 4.2 mm; RBL gain: 4.7 mm; IC12: 2.1 mm), superior to those of the other treatment modalities, but the difference was not statistically significant. Defects treated with only flap surgery showed the most inferior clinical response (PAL gain: 1.5 mm; PPD12: 5.1 mm; RBL gain: 1.2 mm; IC12: 4.2 mm) of all groups. Conclusion: The results failed to demonstrate an added effect of Bio-Oss(R) implantation in combination with GTR on the healing of deep interproximal 1- or 2-wall, or combined 1- and 2-wall intrabony defects compared with GTR alone. Local application of gentamicin, on the other hand, improved the treatment outcome but not to an extent that it was statistically significant.