Application of enamel matrix derivative in conjunction with non‐surgical therapy for treatment of moderate to severe periodontitis: A 12‐month, randomized prospective, multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of periodontitis aims to halt progressive bone and attachment loss and regenerate periodontal structures. In this study, the effect of using an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy (test) versus non-surgical therapy alone (control) was evaluated. METHODS: A prospective, split-mouth, multicenter study evaluated scaling and root planing (SRP) with and without EMD in 51 patients presenting with moderate to severe periodontitis (PPD = 5 to 8 mm) in at least 2 pockets per contralateral quadrants within the same arch. The primary outcome variable was change in clinical attachment level (CAL) after 12 months. Secondary variables included probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), gingival margin level, dentin hypersensitivity, and percent of pockets converted to sites no longer requiring surgical treatment. RESULTS: CAL changed significantly (P < 0.001) from baseline to 12 months for both treatment modalities (test = -2.2 ± 1.5 mm versus control = -2.1 ± 1.3 mm) and similarly for PPD; the difference between groups was not significant. A significant difference, favoring test conditions, was observed in percentage of both healthy PPDs (pockets < 5 mm) and converted pockets (sites no longer requiring surgical treatment); 79.8% of test versus 65.9% of control sites. BoP decreased significantly more (P < 0.05) in test sites (BoP at 17.8% test versus 23.1% control). CONCLUSIONS: Both test and control treatments resulted in significant improvements in CAL and PPD. The adjunct use of EMD with SRP resulted in significantly greater improvements in overall periodontal health with less frequent BoP and a higher number of healthy PPDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".