4. Discussion
periodontium
Elective cellular actions that are aided by the use of barrier membranes for tissue exclusion result in the regeneration of the periodontium. Several barrier membrane materials have been utilized in intrabony defects for promoting periodontal regeneration yet to date, none of the materials have been proven as a gold standard. In the present study, the efficacy of GTR therapy using AM and BM barrier membranes was assessed and compared in combination with an allograft NB for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects. On the evaluation of clinical parameters, both barrier membranes were comparable in terms of pocket depth reduction and gain of RAL at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. These results coincide with those of Jong Jin Suh et al. who assessed the probing depth and CAL at 6 months post operative [The average bone fill was higher in patients treated with BioMesh and nova bone putty than in those treated with AmnioGuard. These results were in conjunction with studies by Jong Jin Suh et al. in 2007, Mopur et al. in 2013 [A notable limitation of this study includes the smaller sample size. The duration of the study could have been extended to one year for better observation of results. Because a histological investigation and re-entry procedure were not carried out due to ethical concerns, we were unable to determine if the clinical benefits were brought about by tissue regeneration, repair, and/or a mix of both healing activities. The future of GTR promises to be exciting as new materials in combination with biological activity will become available. It is clear that the “ideal” membrane for use periodontal regenerative therapy is yet to be developed. Based on a graded-biomaterials approach, a biologically active, spatially designed and functionally graded material similar to the natural extracellular matrix could succeed as the next generation of membranes for periodontal regeneration.