Journal of clinical periodontology · 2021
Late complications after root coverage with two types of subepithelial connective tissue grafts, clinical and histopathological evaluation: A prospective cohort study.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Cardoso Matheus Völz, Lara Vanessa Soares, Sant'Ana Adriana Campos Passanezi, Damante Carla Andreotti, Ragghianti Zangrando Mariana Schutzer
Аннотация
AIM: This prospective cohort study evaluated late complications (LC) on recipient sites comparing two types of connective tissue grafts (CTG).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (n: 60) were treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) plus CTG harvested by de-epithelialized technique (DE) (n:31) or two-parallel incision (PI) (n:29). Areas were evaluated to identify white discharge associated or not with gingival cul-de-sac. Patients were ordered in groups with (DE+and PI+) or without (DE- and PI-) LC. Biopsies for histopathological analysis in LC areas were proposed.
RESULTS: Six cases exhibited LC, 5 in DE graft (DE+) and 1 in PI graft (PI+) group; 2 were diagnosed at 3 months postoperatively, 3 at 6 months and one at 12 months. The relative risk for LC was 1.7 times greater for DE graft (p: 0.01; CI: 1.10 to 2.72; RR>1). Differences were not observed for clinical outcomes after both types of CTGs (p > 0.05). Biopsies showed deep invagination of the epithelial lining suggesting cyst-like area/ cavity with keratin content and consolidated in fibrous connective tissue. After 24 months biopsied areas presented no recurrence of LC, in non-biopsied patients the clinical condition remained unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitations of this study, LC on recipient sites demonstrated no statistical difference between two types of CTG.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants (n: 60) were treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) plus CTG harvested by de-epithelialized technique (DE) (n:31) or two-parallel incision (PI) (n:29). Areas were evaluated to identify white discharge associated or not with gingival cul-de-sac. Patients were ordered in groups with (DE+and PI+) or without (DE- and PI-) LC. Biopsies for histopathological analysis in LC areas were proposed.
RESULTS: Six cases exhibited LC, 5 in DE graft (DE+) and 1 in PI graft (PI+) group; 2 were diagnosed at 3 months postoperatively, 3 at 6 months and one at 12 months. The relative risk for LC was 1.7 times greater for DE graft (p: 0.01; CI: 1.10 to 2.72; RR>1). Differences were not observed for clinical outcomes after both types of CTGs (p > 0.05). Biopsies showed deep invagination of the epithelial lining suggesting cyst-like area/ cavity with keratin content and consolidated in fibrous connective tissue. After 24 months biopsied areas presented no recurrence of LC, in non-biopsied patients the clinical condition remained unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the limitations of this study, LC on recipient sites demonstrated no statistical difference between two types of CTG.