Treatment of intrabony periodontal defects using rhFGF‐2 in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral or rhFGF‐2 alone: A 6‐month randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 46; no. 3; pp. 332 - 341
• Main Authors: Saito, Atsushi, Bizenjima, Takahiro, Takeuchi, Takahiro, Suzuki, Eiichi, Sato, Masahiro, Yoshikawa, Kouki, Kitamura, Yurie, Matsugami, Daisuke, Aoki, Hideto, Kita, Daichi, Imamura, Kentaro, Irokawa, Daisuke, Seshima, Fumi, Tomita, Sachiyo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-03-2019; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss; Animals; bone graft; Bone Substitutes; Cattle; Defects; Dentistry; deproteinized bovine bone mineral; FGF‐2; Fibroblast growth factors; Follow-Up Studies; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Gum disease; Humans; Minerals; Patients; patient‐reported outcome; Periodontal Attachment Loss; periodontal regeneration; Periodontal Therapy; Periodontitis; Randomized Clinical Trial; Treatment Outcome; patient-reported outcome; FGF-2; periodontal regeneration; bone graft; deproteinized bovine bone mineral; periodontitis
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13086

Aim
To evaluate the use of recombinant human fibroblast growth factor (rhFGF)‐2 in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared with rhFGF‐2 alone, in the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects.
Materials and Methods
Patients with periodontitis who had received initial periodontal therapy and had intrabony defects of ≥ 3 mm in depth were enrolled. Sites were randomly assigned to receive a commercial formulation of 0.3% rhFGF‐2 + DBBM (test) or rhFGF‐2 alone (control). Clinical parameters and a patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM) were evaluated at baseline and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively.
Results
Twenty‐two sites in each group were evaluated. A significant improvement in clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline was observed in both groups at 6 months postoperatively. CAL gain was 3.16 ± 1.45 mm in the test group and 2.77 ± 1.15 mm in the control group, showing no significant difference between groups. Radiographic bone fill was significantly greater in the test group (47.2%) than in the control group (29.3%). No significant difference in PROM between groups was observed.
Conclusions
At 6 months, no significant difference in CAL gain or PROM between the two treatments was observed, although combination therapy yielded an enhanced radiographic outcome.