BioMend : Features & Benefits

Multi-Center Results

Results from the multi-center controlled studies. In eight investigational centers totaling 133 patients, BioMend absorbable collagen membrane was compared to either an e-PTFE membrane or surgical debridement in the treatment of furcation defects.

BioMend versus Gore-Tex® Periodontal Material. A statistically significant improvement was observed for the decrease in probing depth and the clinical gain in probing attachment in furcation defects treated with BioMend (test) versus Gore-Tex e-PTFE (control), using the paired t test (p = 0.02) and the Wilcox on Signed Rank test (p = 0.03). 1

Clinical changes at one year re-entry. During the course of this University of Michigan study, there were no adverse tissue reactions, sensitivity reactions, infections, or delayed healing associated with the BioMend membrane. The results indicate that placement of Type I bovine collagen in Class II furcations results in significantly greater defect fill and vertical bone fill when compared to control sites (p = < 0.05). 2

1. Data obtained from the BioMend Premarket Notification Summary of Safety and Efficiency.

2. Wang H, J. Periodontology 1994: Vol. 65, No. 11;1029-1036.

Conclusions:

Use of BioMend absorbable collagen membrane resulted in favorable clinical results in both furcation and proximal defects.
The BioMend membrane group yielded the only complete furcation closures.
None of the defects treated with surgical debridement or Gore-Tex Periodontal Material had complete closure of defects.

Gore-Tex is a registered trademark of W.L. Gore and Assoc., Inc.