{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039603960396039604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020273455917020275, 'mean_word_length': 5.115273775216139, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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.