We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
PERIO - Periodontal Practice Today
PERIO - Periodontal Practice Today 3 (2006), No. 2     15. June 2006
PERIO - Periodontal Practice Today 3 (2006), No. 2  (15.06.2006)

Page 105-113

Bioactive Glass with or without Enamel Matrix Derivative in Class II Furcation Lesions: Histomorphometric Study in Dogs
Pontes, Ana Emília F./Palioto, Daniela B./Novaes jr., Arthur B./Souza, Sérgio L. S./Taba jr., Mário/Grisi, Márcio F. M.
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of bioactive glass (BG), with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of class II furcation lesions.
Methods: Experimental furcation defects were surgically created on mandibular P2, P3 and P4 of 6 mongrel dogs, and filled with gutta-percha. Four weeks later, the defects were debrided, the roots were planed and notches were placed at bone level. Each tooth was randomly assigned into BG+EMD, BG or internal control group. The animals were sacrificed 12 weeks later.
Results: The results for the groups control, BG and EMD+BG were, respectively: extension of new cementum (ENC), 49.55 ± 15.43%, 84.01 ± 7.87%, 91.96 ± 5.69%; epithelium extension (EE), 27.00 ± 23.89%, 4.79 ± 6.98%, 1.89 ± 2.47%; extension of connective tissue (ECT), 23.44 ± 9.09%, 11.20 ± 4.87%, 6.15 ± 5.19%; bone fill area (BFA), 51.15 ± 9.23%, 74.97 ± 9.02%, 76.53 ± 4.48%; mineralised bone (MB), 40.15 ± 9.95%, 31.65 ± 15.61%, 37.64 ± 16.25%; and bone marrow (BM), 11.00 ± 3.91%, 32.05 ± 14.61%, 31.13 ± 15.25%. The area of residual bioactive glass particles in the BG group was 11.28 ± 6.81%, and in the BG+EMD group was 7.76 ± 3.14%. No statistical differences (p > 0.05) were observed in any parameter between BG and BG+EMD groups, and between BG and internal control. However, comparing the BG+EMD group with the internal control group, statistically significant differences were observed concerning ENC and ECT (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that BG and BG+EMD have the potential to improve periodontal regeneration, and that the association seems to favour the cementum formation.

Keywords: enamel matrix derivative, bioactive glass, furcation lesions, dog, periodontal regeneration