Journal of periodontology · 2021
Efficacy of a harvest graft substitute for recession coverage and soft tissue volume augmentation: A randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McGuire Michael K, Janakievski Jim, Scheyer E Todd, Velásquez Diego, Gunsolley John C, Heard Rick H, Morelli Thiago
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) with coronally advanced flap (CTG+CAF) is the "gold standard" for recession defect coverage; however, researchers continue to pursue lower morbidity, more convenient and unlimited supply harvest graft substitutes, including those that could provide soft tissue volume augmentation.
METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double-masked comparison of a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) versus CTG was conducted at four clinical investigation sites. Single, contralateral, within patient matched-pair, RT1 recession defects were treated with VCMX+CAF (test) and CTG+CAF (control). The primary efficacy end point was percent root coverage at 6 months. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical measures such as soft tissue volume, attachment level, and keratinized tissue width. Patient-reported outcomes included measures such as discomfort, esthetics, and overall satisfaction; 6-month end point results were followed for 1 year.
RESULTS: Thirty patients received control and test therapies, and all patients were available for follow-up measures. Average percent root coverage for CTG+CAF was 90.5% ± 14.87% versus 70.7% ± 28.26% for VCMX+CAF, P <0.0001. Both therapies produced significant soft tissue volume increases (84.8 ± 47.43 mm3 control versus 48.90 ± 35.58 mm3 test, P = 0.0006). The test, harvest graft substitute produced less postoperative pain and was preferred by patients at the 6-month end point. All other end point measures were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: VCMX+CAF root coverage was inferior to CTG+CAF but produced less morbidity and was preferred by patients. Case/patient selection and surgical technique appear key to achieving successful results with the harvest graft alternative.
METHODS: A randomized, controlled, double-masked comparison of a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) versus CTG was conducted at four clinical investigation sites. Single, contralateral, within patient matched-pair, RT1 recession defects were treated with VCMX+CAF (test) and CTG+CAF (control). The primary efficacy end point was percent root coverage at 6 months. Secondary efficacy end points included clinical measures such as soft tissue volume, attachment level, and keratinized tissue width. Patient-reported outcomes included measures such as discomfort, esthetics, and overall satisfaction; 6-month end point results were followed for 1 year.
RESULTS: Thirty patients received control and test therapies, and all patients were available for follow-up measures. Average percent root coverage for CTG+CAF was 90.5% ± 14.87% versus 70.7% ± 28.26% for VCMX+CAF, P <0.0001. Both therapies produced significant soft tissue volume increases (84.8 ± 47.43 mm3 control versus 48.90 ± 35.58 mm3 test, P = 0.0006). The test, harvest graft substitute produced less postoperative pain and was preferred by patients at the 6-month end point. All other end point measures were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: VCMX+CAF root coverage was inferior to CTG+CAF but produced less morbidity and was preferred by patients. Case/patient selection and surgical technique appear key to achieving successful results with the harvest graft alternative.