Clinical oral investigations · 2021
Comparison between a xenogeneic dermal matrix and connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Meza-Mauricio Jonathan, Cortez-Gianezzi Jônatas, Duarte Poliana Mendes, Tavelli Lorenzo, Rasperini Giulio, de Faveri Marcelo
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the outcomes of modified coronally advanced flap (mCAF) combined with either xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) or connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients, in whom 130 maxillary (MAGRs) of type (RT1) were found, were randomly allocated to the two groups. Clinical, esthetic, and patient-centered outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-treatment.
RESULT: Group CAF+ CTG exhibited a higher mean root coverage value (mRC) (91.79%) (primary outcome variable) than group CAF+XDM (80.19%) without statistically significant difference at 12 months (p=0.06). The control group also had significantly higher percentage of teeth in which complete root coverage (CRC) and mean gain of gingival thickness (GT) were achieved, than the test group (p<0.05). With respect to patient-centered outcomes, patients of the test group reported having experienced significantly less pain than those of the control group until 7 days (p<0.05). Both surgical approaches were capable of significantly decreasing dentin hypersensitivity (p<0.05). No difference between groups was found in the esthetic score analysis (p>0.05). Mean surgical time was lower in the test group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The two treatments showed similar mRC. However, CAF+CTG was superior to CAF+XDM in providing CRC and in gaining GT. CAF+XDM demonstrated advantages over CAF+CTG with regard to patient morbidity and surgical time.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Application of XDM provided a better patient experience and shortened the time to recovery after coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions. However, CTG resulted in improved percentages of complete root coverage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) number: RBR-974c9j.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients, in whom 130 maxillary (MAGRs) of type (RT1) were found, were randomly allocated to the two groups. Clinical, esthetic, and patient-centered outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-treatment.
RESULT: Group CAF+ CTG exhibited a higher mean root coverage value (mRC) (91.79%) (primary outcome variable) than group CAF+XDM (80.19%) without statistically significant difference at 12 months (p=0.06). The control group also had significantly higher percentage of teeth in which complete root coverage (CRC) and mean gain of gingival thickness (GT) were achieved, than the test group (p<0.05). With respect to patient-centered outcomes, patients of the test group reported having experienced significantly less pain than those of the control group until 7 days (p<0.05). Both surgical approaches were capable of significantly decreasing dentin hypersensitivity (p<0.05). No difference between groups was found in the esthetic score analysis (p>0.05). Mean surgical time was lower in the test group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The two treatments showed similar mRC. However, CAF+CTG was superior to CAF+XDM in providing CRC and in gaining GT. CAF+XDM demonstrated advantages over CAF+CTG with regard to patient morbidity and surgical time.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Application of XDM provided a better patient experience and shortened the time to recovery after coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions. However, CTG resulted in improved percentages of complete root coverage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) number: RBR-974c9j.