Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Home | About JISP | Search | Accepted articles | Online Early | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | SubmissionSubscribeLogin 
Users Online: 772  Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font sizeWide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout


 
   Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 493-496  

Comparative evaluation of periosteum as a barrier membrane with and without an alloplastic bone graft in periodontal osseous defects: A 9 months follow-up study


Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Submission11-Sep-2012
Date of Acceptance17-Dec-2013
Date of Web Publication14-Aug-2014

Correspondence Address:
Rameshwari Singhal
Department of Periodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow 226 016, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.138706

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background: Regenerative procedures frequently include the use of barrier membranes and bone grafting materials to encourage the growth of key surrounding tissues. The present study aims to evaluate and compare the ability of periosteum in intrabony defect regeneration. Materials and Methods: A total of ten intrabony defects were equally divided in two treatment groups. Group I consisted of Periosteum used as a barrier memebrane and Group II of periosteum as barrier membrane alongwith graft material. Nine months post operative evaluation of defect fill was done radiographically. Results: Mean defect fill (CEJ-BBD) was found to be significantly lower in Group II as compared to Group I (P = 0.041). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, alloplastic graft material supplimentation results in better regeneration with Periosteum used as a barrier membrane.

Keywords: Alloplastic graft material, periosteum, regeneration


How to cite this article:
Kumar A, Lal N, Singhal R, Rastogi P. Comparative evaluation of periosteum as a barrier membrane with and without an alloplastic bone graft in periodontal osseous defects: A 9 months follow-up study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2014;18:493-6

How to cite this URL:
Kumar A, Lal N, Singhal R, Rastogi P. Comparative evaluation of periosteum as a barrier membrane with and without an alloplastic bone graft in periodontal osseous defects: A 9 months follow-up study. J Indian Soc Periodontol [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Dec 7];18:493-6. Available from: http://www.jisponline.com/text.asp?2014/18/4/493/138706


   Introduction Top


Full regeneration of the periodontium after periodontal treatment modalities has been difficult to achieve because of differences in healing abilities among periodontal tissues. Down growth of the junctional epithelium along the denuded root surface is one of the most important factors limiting the achievement of predictable regeneration.

Traditional approaches to treat periodontal defects include nonsurgical debridement of root surfaces, as well as surgical approaches that provide better access to clean the root surfaces. Although these procedures can be effective, bone is sometimes removed for access or to create better physiologic contours and healing is almost always by repair. Repair is defined as the healing of a wound by tissue that does not fully restore the architecture or function of the part. Because this is not ideal, newer approaches such as regenerative procedures that aim to restore lost tissue have been introduced. This has an advantage over traditional approaches in that after healing, the tissues surrounding the teeth are restored near to their original state. Clearly, regeneration is the most desirable outcome for any therapy. However, this is also the most difficult to achieve. Consequently, a wide variety of treatment modalities have been developed, all with the goal of attaining tissue/bone regeneration. Regenerative procedures frequently include the use of barrier membranes and bone grafting materials to encourage the growth of key surrounding tissues, whereas excluding unwanted cell types such as epithelial cells. [1] Although regenerative therapies have great potential, they remain unpredictable in their ability to consistently produce acceptable outcomes in all situations.

The periosteum, as a structure rich in osteoprogenitor cells, has been viewed as having regenerative potential. [2],[3] Periosteal grafts have the potential to stimulate osteogenesis in the periodontally involved area by the ability to stimulate osteogenic factors. At the same time, periosteal grafts provide the wound area with an additional number of osteoprogenitor cells that may compensate for the deficient cells available in the periodontal defect.

The present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of periosteum as a barrier membrane in periodontal osseous defects and to compare the periosteum as a barrier membrane with an alloplastic bone graft in periodontal osseous defects.


   Materials and methods Top


Subjects with chronic periodontitis in the age group ranging from 18 to 50 years irrespective of their sex were selected from the out-patient Department of Periodontics.

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects physically and mentally fit, free of any systemic diseases that could influence the outcome of the therapy
  • A good level of oral hygiene with probing pocket depth >5 mm after phase-I therapy
  • Initial assessment of vertical osseous defects with intraoral periapical radiographs
  • Presence of two or three wall intrabony defects.


Exclusion criteria

  • Subjects taking any medications or antibiotic therapy within 6 months prior to study
  • Subjects having any deleterious habits such as smoking and tobacco chewing
  • Subjects with one wall intrabony defects
  • Pregnant or lactating women.


Study design

The subjects were randomly divided into two groups on the basis of treatment procedure. Ten intrabony defects were equally divided in groups of five each.

  • Group-I: Subjects treated with open flap debridement and periosteum used as a barrier membrane
  • Group-II: Subjects treated with open flap debridement and periosteum used as a barrier membrane along with alloplastic graft.


All baseline clinical parameters were obtained immediately before surgery. Recording for clinical parameters were repeated at 9 months after surgery. Using customized film holders and long cone paralleling technique, radio-visiographs were taken at the time of the initial examination and at 9 months post-surgery using the parallel cone technique. Linear measurements of distance from cemento-enamel junction to base of bone defect (CEJ-BBD) were made on computer digitized images of the radiographs. CDR Dicom version 3.5 by Schick tech. software was used for measurement on Radio Visio Graphy (RVG) digitized images.

All subjects completed a comprehensive medical and dental history examination. Subjects were then given an explanation of the study purpose including benefits and associated risks, finally a signed informed consent form were obtained from the subjects. At 4 weeks after scaling and root planning, just prior to the surgical procedure, baseline data was recorded. The surgical procedure followed for harvesting the periosteal graft is the same as Singhal et al. [4]

At 7 days after surgery, periodontal dressings and sutures were removed, the site was cleaned, and the dressing was replaced if needed. Subjects were recalled after every 4 week for a period of 9 months for oral hygiene evaluation and prophylaxis.

The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 15.0 statistical Analysis Software. The values were represented in number (%) and mean ± standard deviation.


   Results Top


All the subjects enrolled in the study showed good compliance to treatment. No post-operative complications were observed during the course of the study. Ten intrabony defects were assessed for the study protocol.

Before treatment both groups were matched for CEJ-BBD distance showing no statistically significant intergroup difference (P > 0.05). On after procedure evaluation, mean CEJ-BBD was found to be significantly lower in Group II when compared to Group I (P = 0.041). On comparing the proportional change in CEJ-BBD between Groups I and II, the difference between two groups was found to be significant statistically (P = 0.026) [Table 1].
Table 1: Intergroup statistical analysis


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Regenerative periodontal therapy aims to predictably restore the tooth supporting periodontal tissues (i.e. new periodontal ligament, new cementum with inserting periodontal ligament fibres and new bone) that have been lost due to periodontal disease or dental trauma. [5] Several modalities of periodontal regeneration include osseous grafts, guided tissue regeneration (GTR), or combination of both. Bone grafting is the most common form of regenerative therapy although effective in decreasing probing depths and improving attachment levels, do not promote true regeneration of the periodontal unit on a predictable basis.

Several bioresorbable and non-resorbable materials have been used for GTR, which includes ethyl cellulose, collagen, polylactic acid and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. The ideal barrier membrane materials should be biocompatible; easy to obtain, harvest and manipulate, abundant; bioresorbable (thereby eliminating the need for a second surgical procedure); and economical.

Barrier membranes serve the purpose of preventing epithelial downgrowth, thereby allowing progenitor cells of the bone and periodontal ligament to regenerate desirable tissues from the base of the defect. Autogenous periosteal grafts are an attractive alternative to existing barrier membrane materials since they meet the requirements of an ideal material and they are biologically accepted. Moreover, periosteum is highly vascular and is known to contain fibroblasts and their progenitor cells i.e. osteoblasts and stem cells. The cells of periosteum retain the ability to differentiate into fibroblasts, osteoblasts, chondrocytes, adipocytes, and skeletal myocytes. The tissue produced by these cells includes cementum with periodontal ligament fibres and bone. [6],[7] This is the reason for using the periosteum as a barrier membrane in the present study.

In the present study, the autogenous periosteum is surgically mobilized and placed over exposed intrabony defect covering it properly and hence that cambium layer juxtaposed to exposed intrabony defect. The autogenous periosteum was attached at one site to mucoperiosteal flap maintaining its vascular supply, which is important for healing and maintaining vital cambium layer which has the potential to stimulate bone formation. Multiple factors influence the predictability of treatment outcomes after GTR procedures. Clinically, the amount of new attachment achieved may be directly related to patient factors (oral hygiene, smoking and systemic health), root anatomy and the surgical technique. Degree of periodontal destruction and remaining periodontal-osseous components (depth, width and number of osseous walls) are other critical factors that may cause wide variations in the outcome of GTR.

In the present study, all patients showed good compliance, with uneventful postoperative healing in both groups. Patient related factors were minimal as systemically healthy, non-smokers subjects were enrolled in the study. Currently, osseous grafting alongwith GTR is the technique with the most histologic documentation of periodontal regeneration. [8] The use of synthetically produced bone-substitute materials (i.e. alloplasts) circumvents some of the disadvantages of autogenous, allogenic, or xenogenic bone grafts. For example, autografts show unpredictable resorption; require additional surgical sites, time and costs; and result in added morbidity of the donor site, [9],[10] whereas the performance of allografts largely depends on the type and processing of donor tissue and theoretically creates a certain risk for immune-mediated rejection of the graft and the transmission of infectious diseases. [11] In addition, compared with xenogenic materials, alloplasts theoretically have the advantage that their physicochemical characteristics can be more or less adjusted to the need of the specific indication.

The surgical procedure consisted of sulcular incisions, and where possible, the papillary preservation technique with the retention of the marginal gingiva. This was followed by the reflection of full thickness mucoperiosteal flaps to expose the bony defect and to attain an adequate coverage of the treated site.

Although histologic methods have been considered as standard in assessing true periodontal regeneration, [12] due to ethical considerations and patient management limitations, [1] no histologic evidence was obtained in the present study.

Radiographic bone measurement following regenerative procedures is a non- invasive, painless alternative to direct bone measurements. A study by Wolf et al., [13] assessed the reliability of digital radiography in measuring interproximal bone loss. They found that overall measurement on the digitized images come quite close to the gold standard of intrasurgical measurement.

The measurement of intrabony defects was done with the help of RVG. The CEJ- BBD distance of intrabony defects was decreased in both the treatment procedures. The findings were comparable with the finding of Joly et al.[14] The amount of bone defect fill was more in Group II treated with periosteum as barrier membrane and with alloplastic bone graft (β-tricalcium phosphate + hydroxyapatite). Similar results were reported by Mellado et al.[15] and Singhal et al.[4] However, in Group I inconsistent results were obtained. One out of five cases showed bone loss. In Group II encouraging results were seen, four out of five cases showed greater reduction in defect size. This variation can be attributed to morphologic features of the defects, duration of healing, flap position and additional benefit of alloplastic material in regeneration.

Limitations of this study include a comparatively small sample size and short study period. Further studies with longer follow-up period and a larger sample size can be done.

 
   References Top

1.Melcher AH. On the repair potential of periodontal tissues. J Periodontol 1976;47:256-60.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Ishida H, Tamai S, Yajima H, Inoue K, Ohgushi H, Dohi Y. Histologic and biochemical analysis of osteogenic capacity of vascularized periosteum. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;97:512-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Ueno T, Kagawa T, Ishida N, Fukunaga J, Mizukawa N, Sugahara T, et al. Prefabricated bone graft induced from grafted periosteum for the repair of jaw defects: An experimental study in rabbits. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001;29:219-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Singhal R, Nandlal, Kumar A, Rastogi P. Role of space provision in regeneration of localized two-wall intrabony defects using periosteal pedicle graft as an autogenous guided tissue membrane. J Periodontol 2013;84:316-24.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Polimeni G, Xiropaidis AV, Wikesjö UM. Biology and principles of periodontal wound healing/regeneration. Periodontol 2000 2006;41:30-47.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Bouchard P, Malet J, Borghetti A. Decision-making in aesthetics: Root coverage revisited. Periodontol 2000 2001;27:97-120.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.De Bari C, Dell'Accio F, Vanlauwe J, Eyckmans J, Khan IM, Archer CW, et al. Mesenchymal multipotency of adult human periosteal cells demonstrated by single-cell lineage analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1209-21.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Bowers GM, Chadroff B, Carnevale R, Mellonig J, Corio R, Emerson J, et al. Histologic evaluation of new attachment apparatus formation in humans. Part I. J Periodontol 1989;60:664-74.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Hoppenreijs TJ, Nijdam ES, Freihofer HP. The chin as a donor site in early secondary osteoplasty: A retrospective clinical and radiological evaluation. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1992;20:119-24.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Taylor GI. The current status of free vascularized bone grafts. Clin Plast Surg 1983;10:185-209.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Stavropoulos A, Windisch P, Szendröi-Kiss D, Peter R, Gera I, Sculean A. Clinical and histologic evaluation of granular Beta-tricalcium phosphate for the treatment of human intrabony periodontal defects: A report on five cases. J Periodontol 2010;81:325-34.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Yukana RA. Advances in periodontics, part (II). Dent Clin N Am 1998;42:42-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Wolf B, von Bethlenfalvy E, Hassfeld S, Staehle HJ, Eickholz P. Reliability of assessing interproximal bone loss by digital radiography: Intrabony defects. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:869-78.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Joly JC, Palioto DB, de Lima AF, Mota LF, Caffesse R. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of periodontal intrabony defects treated with guided tissue regeneration. A pilot study. J Periodontol 2002;73:353-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Mellado JR, Salkin LM, Freedman AL, Stein MD. A Comparative study of ePTFE periodontal membranes with and without decalcified freeze-dried bone allografts for the regeneration of interproximal intraosseous defects. J Periodontol 1995;66:751-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1302    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded271    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal