Biomedical subjects

M E Aichelmann-Reidy

Publications and source records attributed to M E Aichelmann-Reidy.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

An economic evaluation of a chlorhexidine chip for treating chronic periodontitis: the CHIP (chlorhexidine in periodontitis) study.

BACKGROUND: The authors previously suggested that an adjunctive, controlled-release chlorhexidine, or CHX, chip may reduce periodontal surgical needs at little additional cost. This article presents an economic analysis of the CHX chip in general dental practice. METHODS: In a one-year prospective clinical trial, 484 chronic periodontitis patients in 52 general practices across the United States were treated with either scaling and root planing, or SRP, plus any therapy prescribed by treating, unblinded dentists; or SRP plus other therapy as above but including the CHX chip. Economic data were collected from bills, case report forms and 12-month treatment recommendations from blinded periodontist evaluators. RESULTS: Total dental charges were higher for SRP + CHX chip patients vs. SRP patients when CHX chip costs were included (P = .027) but lower when CHX chip costs were excluded (P = .012). About one-half of the CHX chip acquisition cost was offset by savings in other charges. SRP + CHX chip patients were about 50 percent less likely to undergo surgical procedures than were SRP patients (P = .021). At the end of the trial, periodontist evaluators recommended similar additional procedures for both groups: SRP, about 46 percent; maintenance, about 37 percent; surgery, 56 percent for SRP alone and 63 percent for SRP + CHX chip. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive CHX chip use for general-practice patients with periodontitis increased costs but reduced surgeries over one year. At study's end, periodontists recommended similar additional surgical treatment for both groups. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In general practice, routine use of the CHX chip suggests that costs will be partially offset by reduced surgery over at least one year.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Clinical comparison of microporous biocompatible composite of PMMA, PHEMA and calcium hydroxide grafts and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier membranes in human mandibular molar Class II furcations. A case series.

BACKGROUND: Class II furcations present difficult treatment problems. Several treatment approaches to obtain furcation fill have been used with varying success. METHODS: The response of mandibular Class II furcations to treatment with either a microporous biocompatible composite of PMMA (poly-methyl-methacrylate), PHEMA (poly-hydroxyl-ethyl methacrylate) and calcium hydroxide graft synthetic bone (HTR) replacement graft material; ePTFE barrier membrane; or a combination of the two was evaluated in trios of mandibular molars with Class II furcations in 8 patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis. Following initial preparation, full-thickness flaps were raised in the areas being treated, the bone and furcation defects debrided of granulomatous tissue, and the involved root surfaces mechanically prepared and chemically conditioned. By random allocation, HTR, ePTFE, or a combination of both was placed into and/or fitted over the furcations, packed and/or secured in place, and the host flap replaced or coronally positioned with sutures. Postsurgical deplaquing was performed every 10 days leading up to ePTFE removal at approximately 6 weeks. Continuing periodontal maintenance therapy was provided until surgical reentry at 6 months for documentation and any further necessary treatment. RESULTS: Direct clinical measurements demonstrated essentially similar clinical results with all 3 treatments for bone and soft tissue changes. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences except for better horizontal amount and percent defect fill with HTR alone. Four of 8 furcations became Class I clinically with HTR alone, 5 of 8 became Class I with ePTFE alone, and 5 of 8 with combination treatment. The only complete furcation closure occurred with HTR. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest essentially equal clinical results with HTR bone replacement graft material alone, ePTFE barrier alone, and a combination of the two in mandibular molar Class II furcations. However, a real difference may not have been detected based on the small number of subjects in the study.

Biocompatible Materials↗

PubMed2001

Clinical evaluation of acellular allograft dermis for the treatment of human gingival recession.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal root coverage procedures to treat recession areas are indicated for unesthetic, exposed, and/or painful root surfaces. Many methods, most using autogenous soft tissue grafts, have been utilized, but with associated morbidity at the donor sites. An alternative donor material would reduce the morbidity and provide for sufficient available donor tissue. METHODS: An acellular allogeneic dermal connective tissue matrix (AD) and autogenous palatal connective tissue (CT) were compared as subepithelial grafts for the treatment of gingival recession. Twenty-two patients with similar isolated gingival recession of > or = 2 mm on 2 separate teeth were treated with the subepithelial graft technique. Exposed roots were hand root planed only and, by random allocation, either a fitted AD or fitted CT graft was secured in place and covered by coronally positioned flaps. RESULTS: Mann Whitney U test analysis found the following changes at 6 months for AD and CT, respectively, compared to presurgical conditions: root coverage of 1.7 +/- 1.2 (65.9%) and 2.2 +/- 1.1 mm (74.1%) (both P<0.01), increase in keratinized tissue (KT) of 1.2 +/- 1.3 and 1.6 +/- 1.9 (both P<0.01), and an increase in gingival thickness with both; 83.2% of expected root coverage was obtained with AD and 88.6% with CT (P= 0.43). There were no significant differences between treatments for any parameter. Global assessments by clinicians and patients suggested a more esthetic clinical result with AD. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that acellular allogeneic dermal matrix may be a useful substitute for autogenous connective tissue grafts in root coverage procedures.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Bone and bone substitutes.

Bone replacement grafts will play a continuing role in periodontal and other regenerative therapy. Several choices are available to the clinician including autogenous, allogeneic, xenogeneic and a variety of alloplastic materials. Except for fresh autogenous bone, bone replacement graft(s) do not provide the cellular elements necessary for osteogenesis nor can they reliably be considered truly osteoinductive, but instead are mostly osteoconductive, providing a scaffold for bone deposition. Currently, significant decrease in clinical probing depth and gain of clinical attachment have been reported following use of bone replacement grafts when compared to flap debridement surgery alone for periodontal osseous defects. Reported differences among bone replacement grafts (autogenous, allogeneic, xenogeneic, and alloplastic) occur with respect to histological outcomes. Overall, probing depth reduction, attachment level gain and degree of defect fill are similar for all bone replacement grafts.

Alveolar Ridge Augmentation↗

PubMed1998

Multi-center clinical evaluation of combination anorganic bovine-derived hydroxyapatite matrix (ABM)/cell binding peptide (P-15) as a bone replacement graft material in human periodontal osseous defects. 6-month results.

A synthetic cell-binding peptide (P-15) combined with anorganic bovine-derived hydroxyapatite bone matrix (ABM) was compared to demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and open flap debridement (DEBR) in human periodontal osseous defects in a controlled, monitored, multi-center trial. Following appropriate initial preparation procedures, flap surgery with defect and root debridement was performed. Three osseous defects per patient were treated randomly with one of three procedures after surgical preparation. Appropriate periodontal maintenance schedules were followed, and at 6 to 7 months re-entry flap surgery was performed for documentation and finalization of treatment. Analysis of variation (ANOVA) and t test analyses of patient mean values from 31 patients revealed that the combination ABM/P-15 grafts demonstrated significantly better mean defect fill of 2.8 +/- 1.2 mm (72.3%) versus a mean defect fill of 2.0 +/- 1.4 mm (51.4%) for defects treated with DFDBA (P <0.05) and a mean defect fill of 1.5 +/- 1.3 mm (40.3%) (P <0.05) for defects treated with DEBR. Other hard tissue findings showed similar clinically superior results with the use of ABM/P-15. Relative defect fill results showed 87% positive (50% to 100% defect fill) responses with ABM/P-15, 58% positive responses with DFDBA, and 41% positive responses with DEBR. There were 8 to 9 times more failures (minimal response) with DFDBA and DEBR (26% to 29% frequency) than with ABM/P-15. Soft tissue findings showed no significant differences among treatments except for greater clinical attachment level gain with ABM/P-15 compared to DEBR. These results suggest that the use of the P-15 synthetic cell-binding peptide combined with ABM yields better clinical results than either DFDBA or DEBR. Further studies are needed to determine the relative roles of the ABM and/or the P-15 in these improved results.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Bone replacement grafts. The bone substitutes.

Bone substitutes will play a pivotal role in the future of periodontal regeneration. They are synthetically derived or processed from exoskeletons of other species (xenograft) and are an alternative to autogenous or allogeneic bone replacement grafts. Bone substitutes do not provide the cellular elements necessary for osteogenesis, and they cannot be considered osteoinductive, but instead are osteoconductive, providing a scaffold for new bone deposition. Currently, significant decreases in clinical probing depth and attachment levels have been reported with bone substitutes when compared to flap debridement surgery alone for periodontal osseous defects. Reported differences among bone substitutes, autogenous grafts, and allograft materials, occur with respect to histologic outcomes. Overall, probing depth reduction and attachment level gains are similar for all bone replacement grafts.

Alveolar Bone Loss↗

PubMed1997

Clinical evaluation of the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal on single-rooted teeth with diamond-coated ultrasonic tips.

Several studies have found incomplete calculus removal during periodontal treatment with traditional hand curets, sonic, and ultrasonic instruments. This study evaluated the speed and effectiveness of subgingival calculus removal with new diamond-coated ultrasonic tips on single-rooted teeth. Single session subgingival scaling and root planing was performed on 80 teeth with 5 to 12 mm probing depths in 15 patients. Each patient provided groups of 4 teeth that were randomly treated with either hand curets (HAND); standard smooth ultrasonic tip (US); or fine grit (FINDIAM) or medium grit (MEDDIAM) diamond-coated ultrasonic tips. The time taken to reach the therapeutic endpoint of a clean, smooth root surface in a defined region on each tooth with each instrument by the 3 therapists with differing experience levels was recorded. The teeth were then atraumatically extracted, stored in a surfactant, photographed at 10X, and the percent of calculus present in the area of the pocket or on a comparable control surface calculated by histometric point counting. ANOVA and paired t tests showed that mean percent remaining calculus on treated versus control surfaces was HAND 4.6 +/- 5.3 versus 57.5 +/- 28.2, US 4.7 +/- 6.4 versus 54.4 +/- 25.9, FINDIAM 4.3 +/- 5.2 versus 37.5 +/- 22.1, and MEDDIAM 3.4 +/- 4.2 versus 50.7 +/- 20.1, respectively (all P < 0.01). The mean time in seconds to reach the clinical endpoint ranged from HAND 289 +/- 193, US 194 +/- 67, FINDIAM 167 +/- 71, to MEDDIAM 147 +/- 92. All powered instruments were significantly faster than HAND (P < 0.05), but did not differ from each other. On a 0 = "smooth" to 3 = "rough" scale, most often HAND resulted in "smooth" surfaces (10/20), the powered tips of all types "slight" surface roughness (10/20 each), and US the most "moderate" roughness (7/20). There were no differences in percent calculus remaining, surface roughness, or time spent among the 3 treating clinicians despite their varying experience levels. The results of this study showed that percent calculus remaining was <5% with all the instruments given time ad libitum on a given root surface. Root roughness was generally slightly greater with all 3 powered tips. All of the powered instruments took significantly less time than the HAND. Both DIAM tips took less time than US. Diamond-coated ultrasonic tips appeared to be much more efficient than HAND or US in removing calculus in moderate-deep probing depths on single-rooted teeth in vivo.

Adult↗