Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The use of Enamel Matrix Derivative (EMD) associated to microsurgical flaps was demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of intrabony defects, in particular in presence of a self-contained anatomy. The main aim of this study will be to evaluate the difference in Clinical Attachment Level (CAL) between baseline and 1-year follow-up, comparing flapless periodontal regeneration using EMD versus the use of EMD after microsurgical flap elevation (Modified-Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique (M-MIST) / Single-flap approach).
The secondary aims of the study are:
Control group: A buccal flap extending to the surfaces of the adjacent teeth will be elevated leading the interdental papilla in position following the M-MIST approach. After degranulation of the defect EMD will be applied following the standard procedure (after preparing root surface with Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) 22% for two minutes). Non-resorbable 6/0 sutures will be used. The whole procedure will be performed using magnification devices (surgical loupes or surgical microscope). The operator will give postoperative instructions and information about medication.
Test group: The debridement of the pocket will be performed without the elevation of the flap, using ultrasonic tips, air polishing devices and curettes as standard procedure. After that, EMD will be applied and the same procedures as control group will be carried out. Non-resorbable 6/0 sutures will be used in the site of surgical intervention to close coronally the pocket.
At 7 days, suture removal, collection of questionnaires and clinical evaluation will be performed.
Follow-up visits will be carried out at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Active Comparator | EMD + M-MIST approach |
|
| Group B | Experimental | EMD with flapless approach |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enamel matrix derivative application for treatment of intrabony defects | Procedure | EMD application will be associated to M-MIST approach in control group and flapless approach in test group. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Difference in CAL between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between CAL values at baseline and after 1 year; CAL is defined as the distance between CEJ and the most apical extent of the pocket / sulcus | 1 year |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Difference in PD between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between PD values at baseline and after 1 year; PD is defined as the distance between the gingival margin and the most apical extent of the pocket / sulcus | 1 year |
| Difference in REC between baseline and 1-year follow-up |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefano Corbella, DDS, PhD | Contact | 02 50319950 | stefano.corbella@unimi.it |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stefano Corbella | University of Milan | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi | Recruiting | Milan | 20161 | Italy |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The difference between REC values at baseline and after 1 year; REC is defined as the distance between the CEJ and the gingival margin |
| 1 year |
| Difference in PI between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between PI values at baseline and after 1 year; PI value is 1 if we can detect the presence of plaque or 0 if not | 1 year |
| Difference in BI between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between BI values at baseline and after 1 year; BI value is 1 if we can detect the presence of bleeding or 0 if not | 1 year |
| Difference in FMBS% between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between FMBS% values at baseline and after 1 year; FMBS% is calculated as the percentage of sites in the whole mouth presenting bleeding | 1 year |
| Difference in FMPS% between baseline and 1-year follow-up | The difference between FMPS% values at baseline and after 1 year; FMPS% is calculated as the percentage of sites in the whole mouth presenting plaque | 1 year |
| Proportion of treated sites for each group that presented PD <= 3 mm | The number of sites in the whole mouth with PD equal or less than 3 mm | 1 year |
| Tooth retention | The presence of tooth in position without any sign / symptom of acute inflammation (abscess, periodical periodontitis) | 1 year |