Page 109 - GTM-4-3

Global Translational Medicine Comparative analysis of MIF and CF techniques

Table 2. Multiple linear regression using generalized Table 3. PD reduction (T0–T1) by independent factors and
estimation equation model estimation of clinical attachment covariates
level gain (T0–T1) by independent factors and covariates
Factors β 95% confidence interval p‑value
Factors β 95% confidence interval p‑value Group
Group CF 0 - -
CF 0 - - MIF −0.41 −1.07–0.24 0.218
MIF −1.65 −2.48–−0.82 <0.001*** Stage 0.730 a
Stage 0.069 2 0 - -
2 0 - - 3 0.34 −0.62–1.31 0.484
3 −1.47 −2.81–−0.14 0.031* 4 0.58 −1.04–2.20 0.483
4 −1.90 −3.57–−0.22 0.027* Position 0.014*
Position 0.010* Anterior 0 - -
Anterior 0 Premolar 0.05 −0.74 – 0.85 0.896
Premolar 1.07 −0CF.09–2.04 0.032* Molar −0.77 −1.55–0.02 0.056
Molar −0.47 −1.35–0.41 0.291 Arch
Arch Maxilla 0 - -
Maxilla 0 - - Mandible 0.28 −0.29–0.85 0.331
Mandible −0.45 −1.13–0.22 0.188 No. of walls 0.843
No. of walls 0.305 1 0 - -
1 0 - - 2 −0.23 −1.08–0.63 0.608
2 −0.74 −1.86–0.39 0.198 3 0.03 −0.79–0.85 0.331
3 0.23 −0.92–1.37 0.701 Defect depth −0.25 −0.39–−0.11 <0.001***
Defect depth −0.24 −0.39–−0.08 0.003** Defect width 0.00 −0.14–0.14 0.997
Antibiotics Antibiotics
No 0 - - No 0 - -
Yes −0.31 −1.11–0.49 0.451 Yes −0.31 −0.92–0.31 0.331
CAL T0 0.67 0.53–0.81 <0.001*** No. of furcation
KT T0 0 0 - -
No 0 - - ≥1 −0.44 −1.17–0.29 0.241
Yes −0.14 −0.96–0.67 0.733 PD T0 0.65 0.47–0.83 <0.001***
Notes: Statistical significance determined at *p<0.05, ** p<0.01, and KT T0
***p<0.001. T0 refers to the 1 time point.
st
Abbreviations: CAL: Clinical attachment level; CF: Conventional flap; No 0 - -
KT: Keratinized gingiva; MIF: Minimally invasive flap. Yes −0.39 −1.05–0.27 0.245
Notes: Statistical significance determined at *p<0.05, **p<0.01, and
The technique sensitivity of the MIF procedures, ***p<0.001. T0 refers to the 1 time point.
st
which requires a more experienced operator and proper Abbreviations: CAL: Clinical attachment level; CF: Conventional flap;
magnification, might contribute to less CAL gain in this KT: Keratinized gingiva; MIF: Minimally invasive flap; PD: Probing depth.
group, assuming it was sub-optimally executed by training preservation flaps yield superior outcomes and should be
residents, therefore leading to less favorable outcomes. The regarded as an essential surgical step in any regenerative
initial defect depth was found to affect CAL gain outcome procedure that aims to achieve better PD results. Our
significantly, aligning with the findings of Tonetti et al. finding of no difference in PD reduction is aligned with
37
However, no significant difference was found in the initial a study by Windisch et al., which also reported no
38
defect depth between the groups. differences in resulting PD reduction irrespective of the
Regarding the PD reduction, there was no significant employed surgical technique for IBDs treatment with
difference between the CF and MIF groups, with molar enamel matrix derivatives.
teeth showing less improvement compared to pre-molar Both groups demonstrated improvements in BOP, with
and anterior teeth. Nibali et al. stated that papilla significantly greater reduction in BOP in the CF group
26
Volume 4 Issue 3 (2025) 101 doi: 10.36922/GTM025080015