Deproteinized bovine bone and gentamicin as an adjunct to GTR in the treatment of intrabony defects: a randomized...

To evaluate whether Bio-Oss used as an adjunct to guided tissue regeneration (GTR) improves the healing of 1- or 2-wall intrabony defects as compared with GTR alone, and to examine whether impregnation of Bio-Oss with gentamicin may have an added effect.

Sixty patients, with at least one interproximal intrabony defect with probing pocket depth (PPD) > or =7 mm and radiographic evidence of an intrabony component (IC) > or =4 mm, were treated at random with either a resorbable membrane (GTR), a resorbable membrane in combination with Bio-Oss impregnated with saline (DBB-), a resorbable membrane in combination with Bio-Oss impregnated with gentamicin (DBB+), or with flap surgery (RBF).

All treatment modalities resulted in statistically significant clinical improvements after 1 year. Defects treated with GTR alone presented a probing attachment level (PAL) gain of 2.9 mm, a residual PPD (PPD12) of 4.9 mm, a radiographic bone level (RBL) gain of 3.1 mm, and a residual IC (IC12) of 2.7 mm. GTR combined with Bio-Oss did not improve the healing outcome (PAL gain: 2.5 mm; PPD12: 4.9 mm; RBL gain: 2.8 mm; IC12: 3.3 mm). Impregnation of the Bio-Oss with gentamicin 2% mg/ml resulted in clinical improvements (PAL gain: 3.8 mm; PPD12: 4.2 mm; RBL gain: 4.7 mm; IC12: 2.1 mm), superior to those of the other treatment modalities, but the difference was not statistically significant. Defects treated with only flap surgery showed the most inferior clinical response (PAL gain: 1.5 mm; PPD12: 5.1 mm; RBL gain: 1.2 mm; IC12: 4.2 mm) of all groups.

The results failed to demonstrate an added effect of Bio-Oss implantation in combination with GTR on the healing of deep interproximal 1- or 2-wall, or combined 1- and 2-wall intrabony defects compared with GTR alone. Local application of gentamicin, on the other hand, improved the treatment outcome but not to an extent that it was statistically significant.