Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Glass in the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans

Teri Brooks Lovelace, James T. Mellonig, Roland M. Meffert, Archie A. Jones, Pirkka V. Nummikoski, David L. Cochran

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

145 Scopus citations


THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY was to compare the use of bioactive glass to demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) in the treatment of human periodontal osseous defects. Fifteen systemically healthy patients (6 males and 9 females, aged 30 to 63) with moderate to advanced adult periodontitis were selected for the study. All patients underwent initial therapy, which included scaling and root planing, oral hygiene instruction, and an occlusal adjustment when indicated, followed by re-evaluation 4 to 6 weeks later. Paired osseous defects in each subject were randomly selected to receive grafts of bioactive glass or DFDBA. Both soft and hard tissue measurements were taken the day of surgery (baseline) and at the 6-month re-entry surgery. The clinical examiner was calibrated and blinded to the surgical procedures, while the surgeon was masked to the clinical measurements. Statistical analysis was performed by using the paired Student's t test. The results indicated that probing depths were reduced by 3.07 ± 0.80 mm with the bioactive glass and 2.60 ± 1.40 mm with DFDBA. Sites grafted with bioactive glass resulted in 2.27 ± 0.88 mm attachment level gain, while sites grafted with DFDBA had a 1.93 ± 1.33 mm gain in attachment. Bioactive glass sites displayed 0.53 ± 0.64 mm of crestal resorption and 2.73 mm bone fill. DFDBA-grafted sites experienced 0.80 ± 0.56 mm of crestal resorption and 2.80 mm defect fill. The use of bioactive glass resulted in 61.8% bone fill and 73.33% defect resolution. DFDBA-grafted defects showed similar results, with 62.5% bone fill and 80.87% defect resolution. Both treatments provided soft and hard tissue improvements when compared to baseline (P ≤ 0.0001). No statistical difference was found when comparing bioactive glass to DFDBA; however, studies with larger sample sizes may reveal true differences between the materials. This study suggests that bioactive glass is capable of producing results in the short term (6 months) similar to that of DFDBA when used in moderate to deep intrabony periodontal defects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1027-1035
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of periodontology
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 1998


  • Bone, demineralized
  • Bone, freeze-dried
  • Comparison study
  • Glass, biologically active
  • Grafts, bone
  • Periodontitis/surgery
  • Periodontitis/therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Glass in the Treatment of Periodontal Osseous Defects in Humans'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this