Publication: Comparison between 2 surgical techniques for the treatment of early-onset periodontitis
2
Issued Date
1996-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
00223492
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-0030159972
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Periodontology. Vol.67, No.6 (1996), 603-607
Suggested Citation
Mullika Sirirat, Julalux Kasetsuwan, Marjorie K. Jeffcoat Comparison between 2 surgical techniques for the treatment of early-onset periodontitis. Journal of Periodontology. Vol.67, No.6 (1996), 603-607. doi:10.1902/jop.1996.67.6.603 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/17592
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison between 2 surgical techniques for the treatment of early-onset periodontitis
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS STUDY was to compare guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and osseous surgery (OS) in treatment of early-onset periodontitis. Six patients participated in this research, presenting 15 paired defects randomly assigned to 1 of the surgical groups. Pre-operative clinical parameters (probing depth and attachment loss) between the two groups were not significantly different. Results 1 year following surgery showed probing depth reduction (2.60±1.30 mm) and clinical attachment gain (2.20±1.42 mm) were significantly greater in the GTR group than in the osseous surgery group (P < 0.05). The gingival recession was -0.53±0.52 mm and -0.40±0.74 mm for the osseous and the guided tissue regeneration group, respectively (no significant difference, P > 0.05). Radiographic analysis by two techniques illustrated that the interproximal alveolar bone changes at the margin of the defects in the OS group were slightly decreased (-0.20±1.15; 0.26±0.74 mm) and those in the GTR group were slightly increased (0.16±0.96; 0.26±0.68 mm), but showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). The base of the GTR-treated defects showed significant increase in bone fill (1.67±0.68; 1.97±0.74 mm; P < 0.05). At a follow-up reexamination 1 year following surgery, oral hygiene and gingival conditions in both groups were at satisfactory levels and gingiva was clinically healthy throughout the entire study period, except the first 4 to 6 weeks following surgery.