| C-K Lin |
------>authors3_c= ------>paper_class1=1 ------>Impact_Factor=None ------>paper_class3=1 ------>paper_class2=1 ------>vol=13 ------>confirm_bywho=seanlee ------>insert_bywho=dianaten ------>Jurnal_Rank=None ------>authors4_c= ------>comm_author= ------>patent_EDate=None ------>authors5_c= ------>publish_day=1 ------>paper_class2Letter=None ------>page2=349 ------>medlineContent= ------>unit=F0100 ------>insert_date=20090218 ------>iam=3 ------>update_date=None ------>author=??? ------>change_event=4 ------>ISSN= ------>authors_c= ------>score=39 ------>journal_name=J Taiwan Periodontol ------>paper_name=Biological evaluation of periodontal regenerative barriers ------>confirm_date=20090218 ------>tch_id=091069 ------>pmid=19258248 ------>page1=339 ------>fullAbstract=Several methods are available to enhance the healing and regeneration of periodontal tissues after surgical therapy of intrabony defects. The main indications for the use of combined regenerative procedures are the extent and morphology of the osseous lesions. The six studies of the present dissertation focused on the clinical effect of different barrier techniques, bone substitutes, enamel matrix derivatives and a growth factors containing adjuvant used in various combinations on the healing of severe periodontal intrabony impairments. Synthetic, xenogenetic and autologous materials were used in these randomized clinical studies. Mechanical barriers (polytetrafluoroethylene and collagen membranes) for GTR, biological barriers/enamel matrix proteins (EMD), synthetic (beta-TCP) and xenogeneic (NBM) bone grafts and autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) were combined in the test and control groups of the trials. The main clinical variable was the clinical attachment level (CAL) and the subsidiary one was the probing pocket depth (PPD), estimated at baseline and after one year. The summation of the results after the statistical analysis takes cognizance of the followings: a) Each of the eleven regenerative methods evaluated (ten combined procedures) leads to significant CAL gain and PPD decrease. b) Using beta-TCP or NBM with EMD or with PRP+GTR and GTR~s, the difference between the parameters of the test and control groups were not statistically significant. c) It was confirmed in four studies that the addition of PRP to graft materials has not increased significantly the positive outcomes independent of the type of barrier or graft. d) Adding platelet-rich plasma to natural bone mineral, no benefit was observed from the point of view of the clinical variables. e) The polypeptide proteins of the platelet-rich plasma do not enhance the clinical regenerative effect of enamel matrix proteins. In conclusion, the option of the periodontal surgeons between these methods depends mainly on the defect morphology, the patient~s attitude to the different types of materials, the medical concept of the physician, the technical possibilities and the clinical experience of the periodontist. ------>tmu_sno=None ------>sno=21138 ------>authors2=J-C Yang ------>authors3=N-C Teng ------>authors4=Y-H Pan ------>authors5=W-H Hsu ------>authors6=H-M Huang, W-J Chang ------>authors6_c= ------>authors=C-K Lin ------>delete_flag=0 ------>SCI_JNo=None ------>authors2_c= ------>publish_area=0 ------>updateTitle=[Effect of combined therapeutic methods on healing of periodontal vertical bone defects in regenerative surgery] ------>language=1 ------>check_flag=None ------>submit_date=None ------>country=NULL ------>no=4 ------>patent_SDate=None ------>update_bywho=None ------>publish_year=2008 ------>submit_flag=None ------>publish_month=1 |