Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 1489  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2012  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 406-411

Gore-tex® versus resolut adapt® GTR membranes with perioglas® in periodontal regeneration

1 Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Periodontology and Implantology, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Amit Wadhawan
B 71, Pocket - 1, Phase - 3, Sector - 82, KendriyaVihar - 2,Noida, UttarPradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.107427

Rights and Permissions

Background: Successful reconstruction of periodontal tissues destroyed due to periodontitis has been an evasive goal for the periodontists. Several GTR materials and bone grafts have been tried with varied success rates. Aims and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of non-resorbable (GoreTex® ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt® ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas® ) in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. Materials and Methods: Ten chronic periodontitis patients having bilateral matched intrabony defects were treated with non-resorbable membrane (GoreTex® ) and bioactive glass or the bioresorbable membrane (Resolut Adapt® ) and bioactive glass in split mouth design. Clinical parameters like plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession were recorded at baseline and 9 months post-operatively. Similarly, radiographic (linear CADIA) and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated at baseline and 9 months post-operatively). Results: Both the membrane groups showed clinically and statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters i.e., reduction in probing depth (4.6 ± 1.4 mm) vs. 3.7 ± 1.3 mm) and gain in clinical attachment level (4.6 + 1.6 vs. 3.2 ± 1.5 mm) for non-resorbable and bioresorbable membrane groups, respectively. Similar trend was observed when radiographical and intra-surgical (re-entry) measurements were evaluated and compared, pre- and post-operatively at 9 months. However, on comparison between the two groups, the difference was statistically not significant. Conclusion: Both the barrier membranes i.e., non-resorbable (Gore-Tex® ) and bioabsorbable (Resolut Adapt® ) membranes in combination with bioactive glass (PerioGlas® ) were equally effective in enhancing the periodontal regeneration.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded233    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal