4.5 Article

Comparison of two surgical procedures for use of the acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recession: A randomized controlled clinical study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 78, 期 7, 页码 1209-1217

出版社

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060356

关键词

cosmetic techniques; esthetics; gingival recession

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical investigation was to compare two surgical techniques for root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft to evaluate which technique provided better root coverage, a better esthetic result, and less postoperative discomfort. Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. Fifteen pairs of recessions were treated and assigned randomly to the test group, and the contralateral recessions were assigned to the control group. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical releasing incisions; the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without vertical releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated were probing depth, relative clinical attachment level, gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue, thickness of keratinized tissue, esthetic result, and pain evaluation. The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. Results: At baseline, all parameters were similar for both groups. At 6 months, a statistically significant greater reduction in GR favored the control group. The percentage of root coverage was 68.98% and 84.81% for the test and control groups, respectively. The esthetic result was equivalent between the groups, and all patients tolerated both procedures well. Conclusions: Both techniques provided significant root coverage, good esthetic results, and similar levels of postoperative discomfort. However, the control technique had statistically significantly better results for root coverage of localized gingival recessions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据