Comparison of calcium sulfate and autogenous bone graft to bioabsorbable membranes plus autogenous bone graft in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects: A split-mouth study

Background: Current literature shows that calcium sulfate can be used in guided tissue regeneration. Its biocompatibility and resorbability give it significant advantages in the treatment of periodontal and endodontic defects. Clinically guided tissue regeneration procedures have demonstrated significant positive clinical change, beyond that achieved with debridement alone, in treating intraosseous defects. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the clinical results obtained with autologous bone plus calcium sulfate, and to compare them with the results obtained using autologous bone plus membrane. Methods: A total of 12 patients were treated in the present investigation. A split-mouth design was utilized. Twelve 3-wall periodontal defects were treated with calcium sulfate plus autologous bone graft (test) and compared with 12 contra-lateral defects treated with a bioabsorbable membrane plus autologous bone graft (control). Before the surgical procedure, patients were instructed about oral hygiene and scaling and root planing (SRP) was completed. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline and 6 months. Results: There were no statistical differences between test and control defects at baseline. BOP was 58% and 50% for control and test defects, respectively. Mean PD was 7.75 +/- 0.96 mm (control) and 8.0 +/- 1.28 mnn (test). Mean CAL was 8.58 +/- 1.31 mm (control) and 8.83 +/- 0.91 mm (test). At 6 months, mean PD was 3.41 +/- 0.51 (P= 0.0022) for control defects and 3.58 +/- 0.51 (P= 0.0022) for test defects. CAL showed a mean gain of 5 +/- 0.85 for controls (P= 0.0022) and 5.25 +/- 0.75 for test defects (P= 0.0022), Thus, there was a mean reduction of PD of 4.33 mm (56%) for control sites and 4.42 mm (55%) for test sites. The mean clinical attachment gain was 3.57 mm for control sites and 3.58 mm for test sites. As there were no sham-operated controls, it is not clear that the healing of these test or control-treated sites was any better than similar 3-walled defects sham operated. Conclusions: Both therapies led to short-term improvement of the measured parameters; neither was superior to the other.