Limits...
A comparative evaluation of freeze dried bone allograft and decalcified freeze dried bone allograft in the treatment of intrabony defects: A clinical and radiographic study.

Gothi R, Bansal M, Kaushik M, Khattak BP, Sood N, Taneja V - J Indian Soc Periodontol (2015 Jul-Aug)

Bottom Line: Significant improvement in the reduction in probing depth and relative attachment level (RAL) from the baseline to 3 months to baseline to 6 months in group A and group B, which was statistically significant but no statistically significant reduction was seen between 3 months and 6 months.On inter-group comparison, no significant differences were observed at all-time points.Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that DFDBA did not show any improvement in the clinical and radiographic parameters in the treatment of the intrabony defects as compared to FDBA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Ideal graft material for regenerative procedures is autogenous bone graft but the major disadvantage with this graft is the need for a secondary surgical site to procure donor material and the frequent lack of intraoral donor site to obtain sufficient quantities of autogenous bone for multiple or deep osseous defects. Hence, to overcome these disadvantages, bone allografts were developed as an alternative source of graft material.

Materials and methods: In 10 patients with chronic periodontitis, 20 bilateral infrabony defects were treated with freeze dried bone allograft (FDBA-Group A) and decalcified freeze dried bone allograft (DFDBA-Group B). Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed preoperatively and at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. Data thus obtained was subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: Significant improvement in the reduction in probing depth and relative attachment level (RAL) from the baseline to 3 months to baseline to 6 months in group A and group B, which was statistically significant but no statistically significant reduction was seen between 3 months and 6 months. On inter-group comparison, no significant differences were observed at all-time points. In adjunct to the probing depth and RAL, the radiographic area of the defect showed a similar trend in intra-group comparison and no significant difference was seen on inter-group comparison at all-time points.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that DFDBA did not show any improvement in the clinical and radiographic parameters in the treatment of the intrabony defects as compared to FDBA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(a) Preoperative radiograph (b) preoperative relative attachment level (c) depth of defect (d) decalcified freeze dried bone allograft graft placed (e) 3 months postoperative radiograph (f) 6 months postoperative radiograph
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555799&req=5

Figure 1: (a) Preoperative radiograph (b) preoperative relative attachment level (c) depth of defect (d) decalcified freeze dried bone allograft graft placed (e) 3 months postoperative radiograph (f) 6 months postoperative radiograph

Mentions: The infrabony component was assessed on the following parameters [Figures 1a–c and 2a–c].


A comparative evaluation of freeze dried bone allograft and decalcified freeze dried bone allograft in the treatment of intrabony defects: A clinical and radiographic study.

Gothi R, Bansal M, Kaushik M, Khattak BP, Sood N, Taneja V - J Indian Soc Periodontol (2015 Jul-Aug)

(a) Preoperative radiograph (b) preoperative relative attachment level (c) depth of defect (d) decalcified freeze dried bone allograft graft placed (e) 3 months postoperative radiograph (f) 6 months postoperative radiograph
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4555799&req=5

Figure 1: (a) Preoperative radiograph (b) preoperative relative attachment level (c) depth of defect (d) decalcified freeze dried bone allograft graft placed (e) 3 months postoperative radiograph (f) 6 months postoperative radiograph
Mentions: The infrabony component was assessed on the following parameters [Figures 1a–c and 2a–c].

Bottom Line: Significant improvement in the reduction in probing depth and relative attachment level (RAL) from the baseline to 3 months to baseline to 6 months in group A and group B, which was statistically significant but no statistically significant reduction was seen between 3 months and 6 months.On inter-group comparison, no significant differences were observed at all-time points.Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that DFDBA did not show any improvement in the clinical and radiographic parameters in the treatment of the intrabony defects as compared to FDBA.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Daswani Dental College and Research Centre, Kota, Rajasthan, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Ideal graft material for regenerative procedures is autogenous bone graft but the major disadvantage with this graft is the need for a secondary surgical site to procure donor material and the frequent lack of intraoral donor site to obtain sufficient quantities of autogenous bone for multiple or deep osseous defects. Hence, to overcome these disadvantages, bone allografts were developed as an alternative source of graft material.

Materials and methods: In 10 patients with chronic periodontitis, 20 bilateral infrabony defects were treated with freeze dried bone allograft (FDBA-Group A) and decalcified freeze dried bone allograft (DFDBA-Group B). Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed preoperatively and at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively. Data thus obtained was subjected to statistical analysis.

Results: Significant improvement in the reduction in probing depth and relative attachment level (RAL) from the baseline to 3 months to baseline to 6 months in group A and group B, which was statistically significant but no statistically significant reduction was seen between 3 months and 6 months. On inter-group comparison, no significant differences were observed at all-time points. In adjunct to the probing depth and RAL, the radiographic area of the defect showed a similar trend in intra-group comparison and no significant difference was seen on inter-group comparison at all-time points.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the current study, it can be concluded that DFDBA did not show any improvement in the clinical and radiographic parameters in the treatment of the intrabony defects as compared to FDBA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus