4.6 Article

Five-year stability of clinical attachment after regenerative treatment of infrabony defects compared to controls

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 650-658

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13105

Keywords

guided tissue regeneration; operative; periodontal attachment loss; periodontitis; surgical procedures

Funding

  1. German Society of Periodontology
  2. CP GABA company, Hamburg, Germany (DG PARO CP GABA Research Funding)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To evaluate the stability of attachment achieved in infrabony defects by regenerative treatment over 60 +/- 12 months compared to control teeth. Methods Patients treated regeneratively in at least one infrabony defect between 2004 and 2010 were screened for this retrospective cohort study. Complete examinations available for baseline, 12 and 60 +/- 12 months after surgery, and a respective control tooth without treatment, provided eligibility for analysis. Results Twenty-seven patients (age 58 +/- 11.7 years; 12 females, five smokers) were included, each contributing one infrabony defect and one control tooth. Regenerative therapy resulted in significant attachment gain (2.7 +/- 1.6 mm; p < 0.001) after 1 and (3.0 +/- 2.2 mm; p < 0.001) 5 years. Control teeth were stable (vertical probing attachment level [PAL-V] change: 1 year: 0 +/- 0.8 mm; 5 years: -0.2 +/- 1.2 mm). The study did not detect any significant change of PAL-V from 1 to 5 years after surgery for regenerative (-0.3 +/- 2.4 mm) and control teeth (-0.2 +/- 1.4 mm). Multivariate analysis associated smoking and generalized recurrence of periodontitis (amount of sites with PPD > 5 mm) with attachment loss. Conclusions PAL-V achieved by regenerative therapy in infrabony defects is as stable over 5 years as periodontally reduced but gingivally healthy or gingivitis sites. Smoking and periodontitis recurrence are associated with attachment loss.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available