Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 252

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Microsurgical access flap and enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a controlled clinical study

Wachtel, Hannes, Schenk, Günther, Böhm, Sonja, Weng, Dietmar, Zuhr, Otto, Hürzeler, Markus B.·2003·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Objectives: Application of the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) principle and utilization of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) have both been shown to result in periodontal regeneration. While clinical investigations have demonstrated that the use of a microsurgical concept in combination with the GTR technique positively affects the percentage of primary closure and the amount of tissue preservation, no such information is available for EMD‐treated periodontal defects. It was the aim of the present investigation to assess the clinical effect of the microsurgical access flap and EMD treatment with an emphasis on the evaluation of early wound healing. Material and Methods: Eleven patients displaying at least one pair of intrabony periodontal defects with an intrabony component of ≥3 mm participated in the study. At baseline and at 6 and 12 months after surgery, the following clinical parameters were assessed by a blinded examiner: oral hygiene status (API), gingival inflammation (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and gingival recession (GR). Defects were randomly assigned to test or control treatment, which both consisted of a microsurgical access flap procedure designed for maximum tissue preservation. The exposed root surfaces of the test sites were conditioned with a 24% EDTA gel followed by EMD (Emdogain®) application. Primary flap closure was achieved by a 2‐layered suturing technique. Postoperative healing was evaluated by a newly introduced early wound‐healing index (EHI) at 1 and 2 weeks after surgery. Results: Both test and control treatment resulted in a statistically significant mean CAL gain of 2.8 and 2.0 mm at 6 months, and 3.6 and 1.7 mm at 12 months, respectively (p<0.05). Differences in CAL gain between the two treatment modalities were statistically significant at both time points (p<0.05). Additional GR values after 12 months averaged 0.3 and 0.4 mm for test and control sites, respectively, and did not reach statistical significance (p≥0.05). Two weeks after surgery, primary closure was maintained in 89% of the test sites and in 96% of the control sites. Conclusion: Both treatment modalities using the microsurgical flap procedure resulted in a high percentage of primary flap closure and maximum tissue preservation. In terms of PPD reduction and CAL gain, the combination with EMD application appeared to be superior to the microsurgical access flap alone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00013.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 252

Metadata

Authors
Wachtel, H., Schenk, G., Böhm, S., Weng, D., Zuhr, O., & Hürzeler, M. B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-06
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
496-504
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2010605035
Cited by
252
References
0
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microsurgical access flap and enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a controlled clinical study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00013.x
The paper
Wachtel, H., Schenk, G., Böhm, S., Weng, D., Zuhr, O., & Hürzeler, M. B. (2003). Microsurgical access flap and enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects: a controlled clinical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00013.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.