A clinical evaluation of a bioresorbable barrier with and without decalcified freeze-dried bone allograft in the treatment of molar furcations

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 24; no. 6; pp. 440 - 446
• Main Authors: Luepke, Paul G., Mellonig, James T., Brunsvold, Michael A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.06.1997
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - pathology; Alveolar Bone Loss - surgery; Alveolar Process - pathology; Biodegradation, Environmental; bioresorbable barriers; Bone Transplantation; DFDBA; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Female; Furcation Defects - pathology; Furcation Defects - surgery; Gingiva - pathology; Gingival Recession - pathology; Gingival Recession - surgery; guided tissue regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Humans; Male; Membranes, Artificial; Middle Aged; Molar - surgery; molar furcations; Periodontal Attachment Loss - pathology; Periodontal Attachment Loss - surgery; Periodontal Pocket - pathology; Periodontal Pocket - surgery; Periodontitis - surgery; smoking; Smoking - adverse effects; Tooth Cervix - pathology; Transplantation, Homologous
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00209.x

This study evaluated a bioresorbable barrier with and without decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA) in the treatment of human molar furcations. 14 subjects with paired class II mandibular molar furcation defects participated in the study (8 male and 6 female). The class‐II furcation defects were randomly treated with either the resorbable barrier alone or resorbable barrier in combination with decalcified freeze‐dried bone allograft (DFDBA). Gingival recession, probing depth, clinical attachment, and bone fill were measured. 6 months post‐treatment measurements were repeated and each site was surgically re‐entered. When the resorbable barrier alone was compared to resorbable barrier in combination with DFDBA. probing depth reduction was significantly (p<0.01) in favor of the combination therapy. Vertical bone gain was significant with the combination treatment demonstrating more bone fill (p<0.02). Smoking was also a variable examined in this study. When compared to smokers, non‐smokers for both treatment groups revealed greater probing depth reduction, vertical bone gain, and horizontal bone gain. Within the non‐smoking group, probing depth reduction was also significantly higher for the resorbable barrier and DFDBA group than the resorbable alone group (p<0.02). These results illustrate that the probing depth reduction is better in the non‐smoker and the best in the non‐smoker with the combination therapy of resorbable barrier and DFDBA than with resorbable barrier alone.