Regeneration Larissa

Question 1

Bevilacqua

Answer 1

Outcome of different surgical approaches in Class II furcation in mandible (RCT)
Which surgical/anatomical factors play a role

Stage III Grade B patients - Class II (Hamp) furcations
Vertical graded by Tarnow & Fletcher

Cleaning vs cleaning/contouring roof of furcation w/ piezo vs cleaning/contour/BG vs cleaning/contour/BG/CAF
37 furcations 25 subjects

Group 2 - reduced BOP vs group 1 at 180 days and remained at 1yr FU
GR increased in Group 2 - Decreased in Group 4
All improved - Group 4 sig best - 50% healthy, 50% Grade I
NSSD in Tarnow classification for groups 1-3
Group 4 SSD improvement in Tarnow & grade

Question 2

Mikami

Answer 2

JCP - influence of aging on perio regen w/ EMD - 3yr prospective

250 sites in 150pts
age 22-85
M or S-PPT - autograft - EMD - splinting

Sig. negative association between age (10yr increment) and improvement in PPD (0.13mm) and CAL (0.23mm) in first year
by year 3 - NSSD

No effect on radiographic bone defect

Question 3

Trombelli

Answer 3

Effect of flap design for enamel matrix derivative application to intraosseous defects

Systematic review of prospective/retro/rct…. 6-12mo fu

EMD alone:
Best CAL: Single Flap + Flapless
Best REC: MIVs, SFVs
Best PD: SFVs MWF
Best infrabony depth chang: SFVs

EMD + Graft
CAL: NSSD
Best REC: MIVs
Best PD: SFVs MIVs
Infra depth change: SFVs

• Single flap access appears to optimize regenerative outcome*
• substantial regen can come from SFVs and MIVs/PPVs when EMD is combined*

Question 4

Miron (Jepsen, Bishara, Canullo, Wang, Sculean)

Answer 4

Use of PRF with intrabony defects

OFD vs OFD/PRF
OFD/BG vs OFD/PRF
OFD/BG vs OFD/PRF/BG
OFD/BarrierM vs OFD/PRF
OFD/PRP vs OFD/PRF
OFD/EMD vs OFD/PRF
OFD/EMD vs OFD/EMD/PRF
OFD/PRF vs OFD/PRF/Metformin
OFD/PRF vs OFD/PRF/Bisphos
OFD/PRF vs OFE/PRF/Statins

Mean differences:

• *OFD/PRF vs OFD:**
  1. 26 (PD)
  1. 39 (CAL)
  1. 74 (Bone Fill)
• *OFD/PRF vs OFD/BG**
  0. 0 (PD)
• .45 (CAL)
  0. 37 (Bone Fill)
• *BG vs BG/PRF**
  0. 38 (PD)
  0. 82 (CAL)
  0. 91 (Bone fill)

In comparison to OFD alone - PRF improved PD, CAL, and RBF yielding comparable outcomes to OFD/BG

Question 5

Pei

Answer 5

Narative review of new approaches to entire papilla preservation

EPP (Aslan 2020)
NIPSA (Rodriguez 2018)
M-VISTA (Najafi 2018) (vestibular incision sub-periosteal tunnel access)

Compared to PPT/MIST, EPP and NIPSA seemed to have better outcomes reducint PD and CALgain

Evidence?