A study comparing two treatments for gum bone loss in molars: surgery and no surgery using Emdogain

Outcome assessment of minimally invasive non-surgical therapy (MINST) in combination with emdogain versus guided tissue regeneration combination therapy for class II mandibular furcation defects. A randomized controlled trial - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2025/09/094168

Enrollment

Registered

2025-09-03

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-09-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: O- Medical and Surgical

Interventions

Intervention1: Minimally invasive non-surgical therapy (MINST) with Emdogain.: MINST involves a conservative periodontal therapy performed with minimal tissue manipulation, combined with Emdogain, an

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Presence of Class II mandibular furcation defects. (Hamp et al 1975) Systemically healthy Sound Endodontic status Adequate keratinized gingiva

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Pregnancy or lactation. Uncontrolled diabetes Smokers History of allergy to any components of emdogain. Use of medications affecting periodontal health (e.g., bisphosphonates). Inability to undergo surgical procedures. Recent antibiotic medication history Class III furcation defects (Hamp et al 1975) Patients unwilling to participate due to social/religious reasons for use of emdogain

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
To compare the post treatment (one year) clinical attachment level (CAL) in patients treated with Class II mandibular furcation defects with MINST combined with emdogain compared to GTR combination therapyTimepoint: 3rd month,6th month,one year	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. To compare the Post treatment (one year) reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession, horizontal clinical attachment level (HCAL) between Emdogain combined with MINST compared to GTR combination therapy in patients with Class II mandibular furcation defects. 2. Procedure time, post operative pain (Visual analogue scale (VAS) Score and no. of Analgesics used) among the two groups.Timepoint: 3rd month,6th month,one year	—

Measure

Time frame

1. To compare the Post treatment (one year) reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession, horizontal clinical attachment level (HCAL) between Emdogain combined with MINST compared to GTR combination therapy in patients with Class II mandibular furcation defects. 2. Procedure time, post operative pain (Visual analogue scale (VAS) Score and no. of Analgesics used) among the two groups.Timepoint: 3rd month,6th month,one year

—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr ATHUL KRISHNA P

government dental college kottayam

baijurm2@gmail.com9447279605

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026