Journal of clinical periodontology · 2020
Coronally advanced flap and composite restoration of the enamel with or without connective tissue graft for the treatment of single maxillary gingival recession with non-carious cervical lesion. 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.
Cairo Francesco, Cortellini Pierpaolo, Nieri Michele, Pilloni Andrea, Barbato Luigi, Pagavino Gabriella, Tonetti Maurizio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to compare coronally advanced flap (CAF) and composite restoration of the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) with or without connective tissue graft (CTG) for treatment of single maxillary gingival recession with non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients with single gingival recessions and previously restored NCCL were randomly allocated to the two groups. A masked examiner evaluated recession reduction (RecRed), complete root coverage (CRC), keratinized tissue (KT) gain, increase in gingival thickness (GT), patient satisfaction and Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES).
RESULTS: No significant difference for RecRed and CRC was detected at 12 months. CAF + CTG resulted in greater increase of KT width and thickness (p < .001). An interaction between baseline GT and type of treatment was reported, suggesting that when baseline GT was ≤0.84 mm adding CTG led to higher RecRed, while for values >0.84 mm the use of CAF was associated with better outcomes. Similarly, CAF alone provided better final RES score for baseline GT > 0.82 mm.
CONCLUSION: Both procedures were effective for root coverage at single RT1 recession with previously restored CEJ. Adding a CTG under CAF should be considered for Rec with thin gingival phenotype.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients with single gingival recessions and previously restored NCCL were randomly allocated to the two groups. A masked examiner evaluated recession reduction (RecRed), complete root coverage (CRC), keratinized tissue (KT) gain, increase in gingival thickness (GT), patient satisfaction and Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES).
RESULTS: No significant difference for RecRed and CRC was detected at 12 months. CAF + CTG resulted in greater increase of KT width and thickness (p < .001). An interaction between baseline GT and type of treatment was reported, suggesting that when baseline GT was ≤0.84 mm adding CTG led to higher RecRed, while for values >0.84 mm the use of CAF was associated with better outcomes. Similarly, CAF alone provided better final RES score for baseline GT > 0.82 mm.
CONCLUSION: Both procedures were effective for root coverage at single RT1 recession with previously restored CEJ. Adding a CTG under CAF should be considered for Rec with thin gingival phenotype.