Purpose: To evaluate the influence of GTR on the outcome of surgical endodontic treatment.
N= 11 ( n=5 )
Materials and methods:
• RCT study design, PA lesion, GTR as part of Tx, at least 1 year follow up, outcome evaluation according to Rud et al.
•Re-surgery, apicomarginal defects, Periodontal disease, root fracture and perforations, retrospective study.
•Articles published in dental journals in English from 1966 to 2010. •Outcomes were assessed based on radiographic evaluation.
•Complete healing, incomplete healing, and uncertain healing were pooled together as “ success “.
•If sign and symptom was present, the case is considered as “ failure “( regardless of radiograph )
•Controlled group: surgical cases done without GTR.
•Size and type of the lesion was compared between the two groups in means of healing.
•Most highlighted results:
•Small lesions showed better healing in both groups than large lesions. ( Lesion size )
•GTR cases overall healed better than controlled cases. ( Lesion size )
•GTR cases achieved better results in through-and-through lesions than controlled cases ( Lesion type )
•No significant advantage for GTR group in four-wall defect cases over controlled group. ( Lesion type )
•The use of a resorbable membrane showed more favorable outcomes over non-resorbable membranes.
GTR might be considered when planning surgical endodontic procedure in cases where through-and-through lesions are present.