Guided tissue regeneration with non‐resorbable and biodegradable barriers: 6 months results

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with non-resorbable (ePTFE G) and biodegradable barriers (Polyglactin 910 (V)). In 20 patients, providing 25 pairs of symmetrical periodontal defects (7 pairs of interproximal intrabony lesions, 12 pairs of degree II and 6 pairs of degree III furcation involvement), each defect was randomly assigned to treatment with either non-resorbable (control) or biodegradable (test) devices. At baseline and 6 months after surgery, clinical measurements (GI, PPD, PAL-V, PAL-H, P1I) and standardized radiographs were obtained. On the radiographs, the linear distances from the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the alveolar crest (AC), and from the CEJ to bottom of the bony defect (BD) were measured using a computer-assisted analysing method (LMSRT). Both treatments revealed a significant (p < 0.05) PPD reduction (-2.90 +/- 1.33 mm (V), -2.71 +/- 1.41 mm (G)), PAL-V gain (1.78 +/- 1.27 mm (V), 1.46 +/- 1.35 mm (G)), PAL-H gain (2.00 +/- 0.82 mm (V), 1.60 +/- 0.59 mm (G)), and radiographic changes (CEJ-AC: 0.48 +/- 0.75 mm (V), 0.73 +/- 0.92 mm (G); CEJ-BD: -0.76 +/- 0.79 mm (V), -0.41 +/- 0.72 mm (G)) after 6 months. The mean differences between the changes for test and control were not significant for most clinical and radiographic parameters. Similar clinical and radiographic results were found 6 months after surgical treatment using either non-resorbable or biodegradable barriers. More favorable results concerning PAL-H gain could be observed with biodegradable barriers after 6 months. Therefore, based on these results, the use of biodegradable barriers in GTR may be recommended and, thereby, a surgical re-entry to remove non-resorbable barriers can be avoided.