• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.479-493
• /
• 1997

There are various treatment methods including barrier membranes in attaining periodontal regeneration and regaining the function of destructed periodontal tissues due to periodontal disease. Barrier membranes consist of non-Resorbable and resorbable types such as Dura mater and $Guidor^{(R)}$ used in the treatment of intrabony defects and classII furcation defects have been shown to be effectively increased the amount of new bone and cementum.In our study we used premolars with class III furcation defects created by removing the bone 4mm apically from CEJ in adult dogs and placed resorbable membrane Dura mater and $Guidor^{(R)}$ for the test group and flap operation was carried out for the control groups. The effect of membrane on junctional epithelium, alveloar bone, cementum, and gingival connective tisssue in the regeneration and healing potential of periodontal tissues was evaluated and healing results were evaluated histologically and histometrically 8 weeks following the surgical procedure. 1. In the clinical observation, there was no exposure of furcation defects in the control group, whereas slight membrane exposure was noted in the test group. 2. New bone was formed up to the level of the notch in the control group, whereas in the test group new bone formation was observed above the level of the notch. 3. New cementum was formed in both groups of the experiment. 4. The connective tissue observed between the new cementum and new bone in the test group were functionally orientated, compared to the irregular formation of connective tissues found in the control group. 5. Root resorption or ankylosis was not observed in any of the groups 6. The mean and median of the control group were 4.31% and 2.23% and for the Dura mater group were 27.85% and 15.57% respectively. There was no significant difference between Dura mater and the control group. 7. The mean and median of the control group were 4.31% and 2.23% and for the $Guidor^{(R)}$ group were 37.27% and 37.19% respectively. There was a significant difference in these two groups(P$Guidor^{(R)}$ were 37.27% and 37.19%. There was no significant difference between the two test groups. Thus, by using Dura mater and Guidor in classIII furcation defects, the predictable amount of periodontal ligament and alveolar bone regeneration may result.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.217-234
• /
• 1997

The purpose of present study is to compare the effect of treatment using $Guidor^{(R)}$ as a barrier membrane in conjunction with platelet-derived growth factor and insulin like growth factors on experimental dehiscence defects. Following the resection of premolar crowns, roots were submerged. After 12 weeks of healing period, experimental dehiscence defects of 4mm in height and 4mm in width were surgically created on the mid-facial aspect of the lower premolar roots in each of 4 adult dogs. After root planning and demineralization of the root surface with citric acid, the control groups received 4% methylcellulose gel only, the test group I received 4% methylcellulose gel and were covered by $Guidor^{(R)}$ and the test group II were treated with PDGF and IGF and 4% methylcellulose gel with $Guidor^{(R)}$ coverage. Histological and histomorphometric analysis following 8 weeks of healing revealed the following results. 1. The new bone formation showed no statistically significant difference in all groups with $0.59{\pm}0.82mm$($14.03{\pm}19.60%$) for control, $0.70{\pm}0.39mm$($16.30{\pm}9.01%$) for group I, $0.87{\pm}0.76mm$($18.74{\pm}16.03%$) for group II. 2. The new cementum formation showed no statistically significant difference in all groups with $0.54{\pm}0.48mm$($l6.38{\pm}14.57%$) for control, $0.95{\pm}0.38mm$($23.43{\pm}9.30%$) for group I, $1.01{\pm}0.75mm$($22.10{\pm}16.ll%$) for gorup II. 3. The root resorption showed statistically significant differences betweenthe control group and all test groups(p<0.05) with $2.11{\pm}0.53mm$($52.93{\pm}12.32%$) for control, $0.63{\pm}0.27mm$($15.32{\pm}7.05%$) for group I, $0.89{\pm}0.33mm$ ($19.26{\pm}7.11%$) for group II. On the bases of these results, there were no statistically difference between treatment using resorbable membrane and resorbable membrane in conjunction with PDGF and IGF in the dehiscence defects, where it was difficult to maintain space. The use of membrane seemed to be more effective in the inhibition of root resorption.