Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Mandibular second molar (M2) periodontal defects after third molar (M3) removal in high-risk patients are a clinical dilemma for clinicians. This study compares the healing of periodontal intrabony defects at distal surfaces of mandibular M2s using bioabsorbable and non-resorbable membranes. METHODS: Eleven patients with bilateral probing depths (PDs) ≥6 mm distal to mandibular M2s and intrabony defects ≥3 mm, related to the total impaction of M3s, were treated with M3 extraction and covering of the surgical bone defect with a bioabsorbable collagen barrier on one side and a non-resorbable expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) barrier contralaterally. The PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), M2 mobility, and furcation class probing were evaluated preoperatively and 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively. Intraoral periapical radiographs were taken immediately preoperatively and 3 and 9 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Both treatment modalities were successful. At 9 months, the mean PD reduction was 5.2 ± 3.9 mm for bioabsorbable sites and 5.5 ± 3.0 mm for non-resorbable sites; the CAL gain was 5.9 ± 3.3 mm and 5.5 ± 3.4 mm, respectively. The outcome difference between the two sites for PD and CAL did not differ statistically (P >0.05) at any assessment time. CONCLUSION: Bioabsorbable collagen membranes in guided tissue regeneration treatment of intrabony defects distal to the mandibular M2 obtained the same marked PD reductions and CAL gains as non-resorbable ePTFE membranes after M3 extraction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Corinaldesi et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: