Class II Furcation Defect
Conditions
Keywords
Periodontal Regeneration, Enamel Matrix Derivative, Xenograft, Emdogain, Collagen Membrane, Class II Furcation, Mandibular Molar, Cerabone, Bio-Gide, TWEAK, TNF-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK)
Brief summary
This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to compare two regenerative surgical approaches for the treatment of mandibular molar Class II furcation defects in patients with periodontitis. Eligible furcation defects will be randomly assigned to receive either xenograft bone combined with enamel matrix derivative (EMD) or xenograft bone combined with a collagen membrane. Both approaches are used to support periodontal tissue regeneration. Participants will be followed for approximately 7 months. The study will evaluate postoperative pain and patient-reported satisfaction, periodontal clinical parameters, changes in furcation defect volume and relative bone density on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), and changes in gingival crevicular fluid TWEAK levels. Clinical and radiographic outcomes will be assessed before surgery and during follow-up, including at 3 and 6 months after surgery. The study is intended to determine whether xenograft bone combined with EMD provides clinical, radiographic, biological, and patient-reported outcomes comparable or superior to xenograft bone combined with a collagen membrane in the regenerative treatment of mandibular molar Class II furcation defects.
Detailed description
This is a randomized controlled clinical trial involving patients with periodontitis who have Class II furcation defects affecting mandibular first and/or second molars. A total of 24 eligible teeth are planned, with 12 teeth assigned to each treatment group. Before surgery, participants will undergo clinical periodontal examination, intraoral three-dimensional scanning, CBCT imaging, and gingival crevicular fluid collection. Clinical measurements include plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), vertical clinical attachment loss (VCAL), and horizontal clinical attachment loss (HCAL). Eligible defects will be randomly assigned to one of two regenerative surgical treatments. Following flap elevation, debridement, root surface cleaning, and conditioning with 24% EDTA, the control group will receive xenograft bone covered with a resorbable collagen membrane. The experimental group will receive enamel matrix derivative applied to the defect-related root surface, followed by xenograft bone combined with enamel matrix derivative. The flap will then be repositioned and sutured. Postoperative pain will be assessed using a visual analog scale, together with analgesic consumption and patient-reported satisfaction regarding swelling and chewing ability. Participants will return for follow-up at approximately 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery. Gingival crevicular fluid will be collected during follow-up for measurement of TWEAK concentration. At 3 months, selected periodontal and biological assessments will be repeated. At 6 months, periodontal clinical measurements, intraoral three-dimensional scanning, furcation defect classification, and CBCT imaging will be repeated to evaluate changes in defect volume and relative bone density. The primary purpose of the study is to compare the regenerative effectiveness of xenograft bone combined with enamel matrix derivative with that of xenograft bone combined with a collagen membrane for the treatment of mandibular molar Class II furcation defects.
Interventions
PROCEDUREPeriodontal Regenerative Surgery With Xenograft and Enamel Matrix Derivative
Periodontal regenerative surgery is performed using xenograft bone combined with enamel matrix derivative (EMD). After flap elevation, thorough defect debridement, and root surface conditioning with 24% EDTA for 2 minutes, EMD is applied to the root surface associated with the furcation defect. The xenograft bone is mixed with EMD and placed to completely fill the defect. The flap is then repositioned and sutured.
PROCEDUREPeriodontal Regenerative Surgery With Xenograft and Collagen Membrane
Periodontal regenerative surgery is performed using xenograft bone combined with a resorbable collagen membrane. After flap elevation, thorough defect debridement, and root surface conditioning with 24% EDTA for 2 minutes, the xenograft bone is mixed with sterile saline and placed to completely fill the furcation defect. A trimmed resorbable collagen membrane is positioned to completely cover the defect and secured before flap repositioning and suturing.
Sponsors
University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Age 18 years or older. * Full-mouth plaque score (FMPS) ≤ 20%. * Full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS) ≤ 20%. * Willingness to participate in the study and provide informed consent. * Mandibular first and/or second molar with a buccal Class II furcation defect classified as subgroup A2 or B2. * Probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥ 5 mm at the eligible furcation site. * Keratinized gingival height ≥ 2 mm at the eligible site. * No gingival recession extending apically beyond the buccal furcation roof; the furcation entrance must not be clinically exposed above the gingival margin.
Exclusion criteria
* Systemic diseases or conditions that may affect periodontal treatment outcomes, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, heart disease requiring anticoagulant therapy, hematologic disorders, or immunodeficiency. * Pregnancy or breastfeeding. * Untreated endodontic pathology involving the study tooth. * Class III furcation involvement according to the Hamp classification. * Untreated occlusal trauma involving the study tooth. * Grade II tooth mobility that has not been stabilized by splinting, or Grade III tooth mobility according to the Miller classification. * Defective restorations at the surgical site, including overhanging, bulky, or poorly adapted restorations.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Probing Pocket Depth (PPD) | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | Probing pocket depth (PPD) is measured in millimeters from the gingival margin to the base of the periodontal pocket using a UNC-15 periodontal probe at the mesiobuccal, buccal, and distobuccal sites of the treated tooth. Measurements are standardized using an individualized acrylic stent. The change in PPD from baseline to 6 months after surgery will be compared between the two treatment groups. |
| Change in Horizontal Clinical Attachment Loss (HCAL) | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | Horizontal clinical attachment loss (HCAL) is measured in millimeters from the buccal entrance of the furcation to the deepest horizontal point of the furcation defect using a Nabers periodontal probe and an individualized acrylic stent. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Vertical Clinical Attachment Loss (VCAL) | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Buccal Gingival Recession (REC) | Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Plaque Index (PI) | Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Gingival Index (GI) | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Furcation Defect Volume on CBCT | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Relative Bone Density on CBCT | Baseline and 6 months after surgery | — |
| Change in Gingival Crevicular Fluid TWEAK Concentration | Baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery | — |
| Postoperative Pain Assessed by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) | 12 hours, 24 hours, and 72 hours after surgery | — |
| Postoperative Analgesic Consumption | During the first 3 days after surgery | — |
| Patient Satisfaction With Postoperative Swelling | 3 and 7 days after surgery | Patient-reported satisfaction with postoperative swelling will be assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. Higher scores indicate better satisfaction (better outcome). |
| Patient Satisfaction With Chewing Ability | 3 and 7 days after surgery | Patient-reported satisfaction with chewing ability after surgery will be assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, and 5 = very satisfied. Higher scores indicate better satisfaction (better outcome). |
Countries
Vietnam
Outcome results
None listed