Journal of clinical medicine · 2020
Tunnel/Pouch versus Coronally Advanced Flap Combined with a Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Maxillary Gingival Recessions: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Salem Souheil, Salhi Leila, Seidel Laurence, Lecloux Geoffrey, Rompen Eric, Lambert France
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The long-term stability after soft tissue graft for covering gingival recession remains a pivotal goal for both patient and periodontist. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the four-year outcomes of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) versus the pouch/tunnel (POT) technique, both combined with connective tissue graft (CTG), for gingival recession treatment.
METHODS: Forty patients were initially randomly assigned to the control group (CAF + CTG; N = 20) and the test group (POT + CTG; N = 20). Clinical outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC) and complete root coverage (CRC), gingival thickness (GT), and keratinized tissue (KT) gain. Esthetic outcomes were also analyzed using the pink esthetic score (PES) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). All outcomes initially assessed at six months were extended to four years post-surgery.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two patient groups in terms of MRC and CRC. At four years, significantly greater GT and KT gain were noted in the POT + CTG group, and tissue texture enhancement was also more prominent in the test group.
CONCLUSIONS: The POT + CTG technique allows for long-term clinical coverage of gingival recessions comparable to that of the CAF + CTG technique, but it potentially improves gingival thickness, keratinized tissue and esthetic results.
METHODS: Forty patients were initially randomly assigned to the control group (CAF + CTG; N = 20) and the test group (POT + CTG; N = 20). Clinical outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC) and complete root coverage (CRC), gingival thickness (GT), and keratinized tissue (KT) gain. Esthetic outcomes were also analyzed using the pink esthetic score (PES) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). All outcomes initially assessed at six months were extended to four years post-surgery.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two patient groups in terms of MRC and CRC. At four years, significantly greater GT and KT gain were noted in the POT + CTG group, and tissue texture enhancement was also more prominent in the test group.
CONCLUSIONS: The POT + CTG technique allows for long-term clinical coverage of gingival recessions comparable to that of the CAF + CTG technique, but it potentially improves gingival thickness, keratinized tissue and esthetic results.