guided tissue regeneration Flashcards
how to determine true perio regeneration
-histology (not practical)
-CAL gain
-PD reduction
-recession
-bone fill (radiographically or direct inspection)
which bone grafts have been supported to have regen histologically?
autogeneous bone and DFDBA support formation of new attachment apparatus histologically
alloplastic grafts for regen
Histological evidence indicates that alloplastic grafts support periodontal repair rather than regeneration
how deep should the intrabony defect be to benefit from GTR?
(Laurell 1998):
at least 4 mm deep, based on the fact that you get some bone fill (1.1mm) but there is crestal resorption (1mm)
how much change in perio parameters do you expect with GTR +/- bone graft
-Laurell 1998:
-no study achieved 100% regeneration
-CAL gain to around 80% of the defect
-PD reduction from 3.4-8.5 mm
-CAL gain of 4.2 mm (N=545)
-Defect fill of 3.2 mm (N=364)
Simple regression analysis = correlation between defect depth and CAL gain/bone fill with large regression coefficient.
non-resorbable vs bioabsorbable barriers
Laurell 1998: No difference
Murphy and Gunsolley 2003: no difference
Caffesse: no difference
Kinaia: absorbable > non absorbable for vertical bone fill (slightly better but not sig)
GTR versus OFD for intrabony defects
(Murphy and Gunsolley 2003, Needleman 2006 Cochrane)
-greater CAL and PD reduction
According to Cortellini et al., (2017), OFD resulted in a higher risk for disease recurrence compared to regenerative procedures over a 20-year period
GTR versus OFD for furcation defects
Murphy and Gunsolley: GTR> OFD
-improved CAL and PD, esp if GTR+bone
GTR versus GTR+bone for intrabony defects
(Murphy and Gunsolley 2003):
-use of bone did not enhace regen
effect of membrane exposure on regen
(Machtei 2001, meta analysis)
-major effect on implants but less for teeth
-sig diff with exposed membrane but not clinically sig
-minimal effect on GTR
compare EMD to GTR to OFD
Tu 2010:
-EMD >OFD
Esposito 2009 Cochrane review:
-GTR = EMD, but more post op complications with GTR
EMD versus EMD+bone/membrane
Tu 2010 meta analysis:
-EMD > OFD
-no additional benefits of combination
-EMD+bone had 1.10mm more infrabony defect fill than EMD alone
-in terms of type of bone, BioOss had greater benefit
What is the grading system for CEPs
Masters, Hoskins 1964
Grade I: distinct change projecting towards the furcation,
Grade II: approaching the entrance but not in the furcation proper,
Grade III: extending into the furcation proper.
prevalence of CEPs in mand and max teeth
Masters, Hoskins 1964
28.6% mandibular
17% maxillary
90% of molars with furcation involvement have CEPs
Swan and Hurt
32.6% overall
mand M: 33.7%
max M: 31.4%
use of antibiotics for regeneration?
Heitz-Mayfield 2009:
-Prevent post-surgical infection (especially if membrane exposure occurs), optimize potential for regeneration
-Studies with EMD have found NO added benefit with antibiotics
which teeth are affected by CEPs according to Swan and Hurt
-mand 2nd M (51% prevalence) (they are usually Grade 1 and on buccal)
prevalence of IBR in mand 1stM
(Everett) 73%
(Dunlap and Gher) 70%
what are highly associated with IBRs
(Hou and Tsai)
CEPs (63%) and class 3 furcations (25%)
how many isolated furcation involvements are associated with CEPs? (Hou and Tsai)
prevalence of 63.2% furcation defects with CEPs and IBRs
incidence of a CEP Grade III
4.3% (Masters and Hoskins 1964)
How do CEPs affect periodontal treatment
-Enamel prevents attachment of the PDL fibers
- leads to a deep pocket and lower attachment and furcation involvement
-Susceptible to plaque accumulation and affects plaque removal
-Complicates SRP
What is the width of the furcation entrance
Bower 1979
In 81% of the furcation of maxillary and mandibular molars the entrance was found to be 1.0mm or less and in 58% it was 0.75mm or less