Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Treatment of class II furcation involvements in humans with bioresorbable and nonresorbable guided tissue regeneration barriers: A randomized multi-center study
Jönköping University, School of Health Science, HHJ. Oral health.
Show others and affiliations
1995 (English)In: Journal of Periodontology, ISSN 0022-3492, Vol. 66, no 7, 624-634 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this multi-center study 38 patients with contralateral molar Class II furcation defects were treated with GTR therapy using a bioresorbable matrix barrier (test) and a nonresorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) barrier (control). Following flap elevation, scaling, root planing, and removal of granulation tissue, each device was adjusted to cover the furcation defect. The flaps were repositioned and sutured to complete coverage of the barriers. A second surgical procedure was performed at control sites after 4 to 6 weeks to remove the nonresorbable barrier. Before treatment and 12 months postsurgery all patients were examined and probing depths, clinical attachment levels, and position of the gingival margin were recorded. The primary response variable was the change in clinical attachment level in a horizontal direction (CAL-H change). Both treatment procedures reduced the probing depths (P < or = 0.001). Statistically significant gain of clinical attachment level in both horizontal and vertical direction was found at the test sites. At control sites gain of attachment in horizontal direction was statistically significant. The gain of CAL-H was 2.2 mm at test sites compared to 1.4 mm at control sites (P < or = 0.05). At test sites, the gingival margin was maintained close to the pre-surgical level (0.3 mm), whereas at control sites gingival recession was evident (0.9 mm), the difference being statistically significant (P < or = 0.01). Postsurgical complications, such as swelling and pain were more frequent following the control treatment (P < or = 0.05).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
1995. Vol. 66, no 7, 624-634 p.
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-7109PubMedID: 7562355OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-7109DiVA: diva2:127989
Available from: 2008-12-11 Created: 2008-12-11 Last updated: 2009-02-25Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

PubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hugoson, Anders
By organisation
HHJ. Oral health
In the same journal
Journal of Periodontology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 74 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf