Biomedical subjects

Anton Sculean

Publications and source records attributed to Anton Sculean.

58 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Comparison of clinical, radiographic, and histometric measurements following treatment with guided tissue regeneration or enamel matrix proteins in human periodontal defects.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following 2 different regenerative procedures in humans. METHODS: Fourteen advanced intrabony defects at teeth scheduled for extraction were randomly treated as follows: 8 with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers and 6 with an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD). Standardized radiographs, probing depths (PD), and attachment levels (CAL) at baseline and 6 months after therapy were evaluated and compared to the histometric measurements made following the removal of teeth and surrounding tissues 6 months after the surgery. RESULTS: Significant PD reductions (GTR: -5.62 mm; EMD: -5.00 mm) and CAL gains (GTR: 3.87 mm; EMD: 2.67 mm) were observed in both groups. Six months after surgery, minor resorptions of the alveolar crest (AC) (GTR: 0.40 mm; EMD: 0.33 mm) and bony gain at the bottom of the defects (GTR: 0.47 mm; EMD: 1.05 mm) were observed radiographically. No statistically significant differences in the change of clinical and radiographic parameters between the GTR and EMD groups were found. Histometrically, significant amounts of new connective tissue attachment (i.e., cementum with inserting collagen fibers) were observed in both groups (GTR: 2.29 mm; EMD: 1.81 mm). Bone regeneration was found to be significant only in the GTR group (GTR: 1.93 mm; EMD: 0.78 mm). However, the study lacked statistical power for determining equivalence between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that at 6 months after GTR or enamel matrix protein derivative therapy, formation of new cementum and bone may be histometrically demonstrated. Except for the formation of new bone, no statistically significant differences between both therapies could be seen for clinical, radiographic, and histometric results 6 months after surgery.

Absorbable Implants↗

PubMed2002

[Comparative analysis of the sensitivity and accuracy of clinical, radiographic and histometric measurements in assessing periodontal attachment levels].

The ultimate goal of the regenerative periodontal treatment is the de novo formation of new connective tissue attachment with the regrowth of the alveolar bone. Clinically it is very difficult to evaluate the nature of clinical healing and prove the occurrence of real periodontal regeneration. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiographic parameters with the histometric findings following two different periodontal regenerative procedures in humans.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Clinical evaluation of an enamel matrix protein derivative (Emdogain) combined with a bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects in humans.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the treatment of deep intrabony defects with a combination of an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD; Emdogain) and a bovine-derived xenograft (BDX; Bio-Oss) to BDX alone. Twenty-four healthy patients, each of whom displayed one intrabony defect, were randomly treated with a combination of EMD + BDX (test) or with BDX alone (control). Soft tissue measurements were made at baseline and 1 year following the therapy No differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at baseline between the two groups. No adverse healing response was observed in any of the patients. At 1 year after therapy, the sites treated with EMD + BDX showed a reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD) from 10.0 +/- 1.5 mm to 4.3 +/- 1.4 mm and a change in clinical attachment level (CAL) from 10.9 +/- 2.0 mm to 6.2 +/- 1.9 mm (P <.0001). In the group treated with BDX, the PPD was reduced from 9.7 +/- 2.4 mm to 3.2 +/- 0.7 mm and the CAL changed from 10.1 +/- 2.3 mm to 5.2 +/- 1.2 mm (P <.0001). Hard tissue fill was observed radiographically in all defects. Both treatments resulted in significant improvements of PPD and CAL. However, no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed between the test and control groups. Both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Efficacy, side-effects and patients' acceptance of different bleaching techniques (OTC, in-office, at-home).

This clinical study compared the efficacy of three different bleaching techniques with respect to the bleaching times required in order to achieve six grades of whitening in human teeth. Any side effects that were noted and the patients' acceptance of the method were recorded by a visual analog scale ranging from 0 to 10. Moreover, epoxy casts from the study teeth were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy in order to detect any potential changes in the enamel surface due to treatments. Thirty-nine volunteers participated in the study and were allocated randomly to one of three different bleaching treatments: Group A (n=13) used Whitestrips (over-the-counter technique; one cycle=30 minutes), Group B (n=13) used Opalescence PF 10% (at-home bleaching technique; one cycle=8 hours) and Group C (n=13) used Opalescence Xtra Boost (in-office bleaching technique; one cycle=15 minutes) until a defined whitening of six tabs compared to the baseline were reached (assessed by the VITA shade guide). All three methods achieved six grades of whitening. The mean treatment time required to reach the defined level of whitening was 31.85 +/- 6.63 cycles in Group A, 7.15 +/- 1.86 cycles in Group B and 3.15 +/- 0.55 cycles in Group C. All products differed significantly from each other in terms of treatment cycles and required treatment time (p<0.001 by ANOVA and Mann-Whitney-U-test). Using the VA scale, side effects noted within the three groups were minimal. Tooth hypersensitivity ranged from 2.62 (Whitestrips) to 3.38 (Opalescence PF), and gingival irritation ranged between 0.23 (Opalescence Xtra Boost) and 0.85 (Whitestrips). The most accepted method was the at-home bleaching technique. None of the teeth studied showed detectable enamel surface changes in the subsequent SEM analysis using 200x and 2000x magnification.

Adult↗