Is there a role for DFDBA in periodontal regenerative therapy?

Periodontal regeneration techniques for treatment of periodontal diseases

The ultimate goal of periodontal therapy is the regeneration of structures lost to disease. Conventional surgical approaches such as open-flap debridement offer only limited regeneration potential.Currently, surgical procedures for predictable regeneration of periodontal tissues are being developed, analyzed, and employed in clinical practice. This article addresses current trends in periodontal regeneration. Various materials/agents such as bone replacement grafts, barrier membranes, and biologic modifiers currently used for the regeneration of periodontal infrabony and furcation defects are discussed.

Comparison of 2 regenerative procedures--guided tissue regeneration and demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft--in the treatment of intrabony defects: a clinical and radiographic study

The purpose of this study was to compare clinically and radiographically the effectiveness of guided tissue regeneration (GTR), using a bioabsorbable polylactic acid softened with citric acid ester barrier and commercially available demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) in the treatment of 2- and 3-wall intrabony defects. Twelve patients each with one treated defect comprised each group. Conservative treatment was completed 2 to 4 months prior to surgery. Clinical measurements, plaque index, gingival index, probing depths (PD), clinical attachment levels (CAL) and recession (REC), were comparable in both groups at baseline. They were repeated at 12 months. Surgical measurements were also comparable at baseline in both groups. In the GTR group, at baseline the mean distance between the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and base of the defect was 12.3 +/- 2.9 mm and in the DFDBA group 11.3 +/- 1.8 mm. The defect depth was 6.3 +/- 2.0 mm and 5.4 +/- 1.3 mm, respectively. Radiographs were taken at baseline and 12 months later and compared using non-standardized digital subtraction radiography. In the GTR group, mean PD decreased from 7.9 +/- 2.5 mm to 3.5 +/- 1.4 mm and mean CAL from 10.8 +/- 2.8 mm to 7.0 +/- 1.6 mm, the differences being statistically significant (P = 0.002), while REC increased from 2.9 +/- 1.2 mm to 3.5 +/- 1.1 mm. In the DFDBA group, mean PD decreased from 7.1 +/- 1.1 mm to 3.5 +/- 1.1 mm and mean CAL from 9.8 +/- 1.5 mm to 6.6 +/- 1.7 mm (P = 0.002), while REC increased from 2.8 +/- 1.0 mm to 3.1 +/- 1.2 mm. No significant differences were found when the clinical results of the 2 groups were compared. Radiographic differences between the baseline and reconstructed images 12 months later were observed in both groups. Mean crestal bone resorption was 15.3 +/- 22.5% in the GTR group and 10.4 +/- 31.8% in the DFDBA group, and mean improvement in the distance between the CEJ and the base of the defect was 22.8 +/- 18.1% in the GTR group and 15.3 +/- 13.6% in the DFDBA group. However, the mean improvement in the intrabony depth was larger in the GTR group (71.9 +/- 29.1%) than in the DFDBA group (35.4 +/- 21.6%) (P = 0.007). In conclusion, within the limits of this study, both regenerative procedures were beneficial in treating intrabony defects. No statistical significant differences were observed between the 2 groups, with the exception of radiographic defect resolution which was significantly greater in the GTR group.