4.6 Article

Soft-tissue re-growth following fibre retention osseous resective surgery or osseous resective surgery: a multilevel analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 373-379

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12383

Keywords

Fibre retention osseous resective surgery; gingival recession; periodontal disease; soft tissue; treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess soft-tissue re-growth following Fibre Retention Osseous Resective Surgery (FibReORS) or Osseous Resective Surgery (ORS) over a 12-month healing period. Material and MethodsThirty patients with chronic periodontitis showing persistent periodontal pockets at posterior natural teeth after cause-related therapy were enroled. Periodontal pockets were associated with infrabony defect 3mm; 15 patients were randomly assigned to FibReORS (test group) and 15 to ORS (control group). Measurements were performed by a blind and calibrated examiner. Soft-tissue rebound after flap suture was monitored by changes in gingival recession at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12- month follow-up. Multilevel analysis considering patient, site, and time levels was performed. ResultsGreater osseous resection during surgery and higher post surgical gingival recession was observed in the ORS group. The mean amount of soft-tissue rebound following surgery was 2.5mm for ORS-treated sites and 2.2mm for FibReORS-treated sites. Approximately 90% of the coronal re-growth was detectable after 6months for both procedures. The interaction between ORS and time of observation showed a higher soft-tissue rebound after 12months (p=0.0233) for ORS-treated sites. ConclusionsBoth procedures showed a similar coronal soft-tissue re-growth with a significant higher recession reduction for ORS-treated sites. Significant clinical stability of the gingival margin is obtained 6months after surgery for both procedures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available