4.5 Article

Subepithelial connective tissue grafts in the treatment of multiple recession-type defects

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 5, Pages 909-916

Publisher

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050249

Keywords

clinical studies; dental esthetics; gingival recession/surgery; gingival recession/therapy; surgical flaps; tooth root/surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: There is little documentation regarding the treatment of multiple recession-type defects. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results obtained with a connective tissue graft placed under a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. Methods: Twenty-eight patients, with at least two recession defects affecting adjacent teeth, were treated with a combination of a connective tissue graft and a coronally advanced flap. At baseline, the following measurements were recorded: 1) recession depth; 2) probing depth; 3) clinical attachment level; and 4) width of keratinized tissue. At 6 months post-surgery, all clinical measurements were repeated. Results: The mean root coverage from baseline to 6 months post-surgery results was 96%. Complete root coverage was achieved in 20 (71 %) of the 28 defects. The mean recession depth decreased from 3.84 +/- 1.50 mm to 0.14 +/- 0.23 mm. Statistically significant improvements were found for all clinical parameters from baseline to 6 months (P < 0.01). Patients with maxillary recessions recorded statistically superior outcomes than patients with mandibular recessions. Conclusions: The results of the present study demonstrated that the connective tissue graft associated with a coronally advance flap is an effective procedure to cover multiple gingival recessions, especially in defects localized in the maxillary arch. However, further investigation focusing on the effects of this root coverage procedure in mandibular sites is necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available