BACKGROUND: Class II furcations present difficult treatment problems and historically several treatment approaches to obtain furcation fill have been used.METHODS: The response of mandibular Class II facial furcations to treatment with either bioactive glass (PG) bone replacement graft material or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) barrier membrane was evaluated in 27 pairs of mandibular molars in 27 patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis. Following initial preparation, full thickness flaps were raised in the area being treated, the bone and furcation defects debrided of granulomatous tissue, and the involved root surfaces mechanically prepared and chemically conditioned. By random allocation, PG or ePTFE was placed into or fitted over the furcations, packed or secured in place, and the host flap replaced or coronally positioned with sutures. Postsurgical deplaquing was performed every 10 days leading up to ePTFE removal at about 6 weeks. Continuing periodontal maintenance therapy was provided until surgical reentry at 6 months for documentation and any further necessary treatment.RESULTS: Direct clinical measurements demonstrated essentially similar clinical results with both treatments for bone and soft tissue changes. There were no statistically or clinically significant differences (e.g., mean horizontal furcation fill 1.4 mm PG, 1.3 mm ePTFE; mean percent horizontal furcation fill 31.6% PG, 31.1% ePTFE, both P>0.85). Seventeen of the PG treated and 18 of the ePTFE furcations became Class I clinically and 1 furcation completely closed clinically with each treatment. Intrapatient comparisons showed similar horizontal furcation responses with both treatments.CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest essentially equal clinical results with PG bone replacement graft material and e-PTFE barriers in mandibular molar Class II furcations. PG use was associated with simpler application and required no additional material removal procedures.
Adult Aged