Journal of clinical periodontology · 2021
Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivate for root coverage: 5-year results of an RCT using 3D digital measurement technology for volumetric comparison of soft tissue changes.
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.
Zuhr Otto, Akakpo Dodji, Eickholz Peter, Vach Kirstin, Hürzeler Markus B, Petsos Hari, Research Group for Oral Soft Tissue Biology & Wound Healing
Аннотация
AIM: Comparison of the clinical efficacy (digitally volumetric, aesthetic, patient-centred outcomes) of tunnel technique (TUN) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) versus coronally advanced flap (CAF) with enamel matrix derivate (EMD) 5 years after gingival recession therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 18 patients contributing 36 RT1 recessions, study models were collected at baseline and follow-ups. Optical scans assessed recessions computer-assisted [recession depth, recession reduction (RECred), complete root coverage (CRC), percentage of root coverage (RC), pointwise (pTHK) and mean areal (aTHK) marginal soft tissue thickness]. Root coverage aesthetic Score (RES) was used for aesthetic evaluation and visual analogue scales for patient-centred data collection applied.
RESULTS: Sixty months after surgery, 50.0% (TUN+CTG) and 0.0% (CAF+EMD) of sites showed CRC (p = 0.0118), 82.2% (TUN+CTG) and 32.0% (CAF+EMD) achieved RC, respectively (p = 0.0023). CTG achieved significantly better RECred (TUN+CTG: 1.75±0.74 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.50 ± 0.39 mm; p = 0.0009) and aTHK (TUN+CTG: 0.95 ± 0.41 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.26 ± 0.28 mm; p = 0.0013). RES showed superior outcomes (p = 0.0533) for TUN+CTG (6.86 ± 2.31) compared to CAF+EMD (4.63 ± 1.99). The study failed to find significant differences related to patient-centred outcomes (TUN+CTG: 8.30 ± 2.21; CAF+EMD: 7.50 ± 1.51; p = 0.1136).
CONCLUSIONS: Five years after treatment, CTG resulted in better clinical and aesthetic outcomes than CAF+EMD. Increased THK was associated with improved outcomes for RECred and RC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 18 patients contributing 36 RT1 recessions, study models were collected at baseline and follow-ups. Optical scans assessed recessions computer-assisted [recession depth, recession reduction (RECred), complete root coverage (CRC), percentage of root coverage (RC), pointwise (pTHK) and mean areal (aTHK) marginal soft tissue thickness]. Root coverage aesthetic Score (RES) was used for aesthetic evaluation and visual analogue scales for patient-centred data collection applied.
RESULTS: Sixty months after surgery, 50.0% (TUN+CTG) and 0.0% (CAF+EMD) of sites showed CRC (p = 0.0118), 82.2% (TUN+CTG) and 32.0% (CAF+EMD) achieved RC, respectively (p = 0.0023). CTG achieved significantly better RECred (TUN+CTG: 1.75±0.74 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.50 ± 0.39 mm; p = 0.0009) and aTHK (TUN+CTG: 0.95 ± 0.41 mm; CAF+EMD: 0.26 ± 0.28 mm; p = 0.0013). RES showed superior outcomes (p = 0.0533) for TUN+CTG (6.86 ± 2.31) compared to CAF+EMD (4.63 ± 1.99). The study failed to find significant differences related to patient-centred outcomes (TUN+CTG: 8.30 ± 2.21; CAF+EMD: 7.50 ± 1.51; p = 0.1136).
CONCLUSIONS: Five years after treatment, CTG resulted in better clinical and aesthetic outcomes than CAF+EMD. Increased THK was associated with improved outcomes for RECred and RC.