Clinical oral investigations · 2019
Free gingival graft and acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation: a 15-year clinical study.
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.
Cevallos Cecilia Amparo Reyes, de Resende Daniel Romeu Benchimol, Damante Carla Andreotti, Sant'Ana Adriana Campos Passanezi, de Rezende Maria Lúcia Rubo, Greghi Sebastião Luiz Aguiar, Zangrando Mariana Schutzer Ragghianti
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated clinical outcomes of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft compared with autogenous free gingival graft (FGG) for gingival augmentation after 15 years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were originally included and evaluated by de Resende et al. (Clin Oral Investig 23:539-550, 2019), and 12 accepted to participate in this longitudinal evaluation. Clinical parameters evaluated were recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and soft tissue thickness (TT). In addition, esthetic perception was evaluated by patients and by a calibrated periodontist. Data were evaluated by ANOVA complemented by Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: After 15 years, both treatments provided a significant increase in KTW and TT but with superior results for the FGG group (p < 0.05). No differences were observed between groups for PD and CAL. In the ADM group, RD significantly increased in long term, as well as the rate of tissue contraction. The percentage of shrinkage for the ADM group was 59.6%. Conversely, the FGG group presented a creeping attachment of 17.6% and RD significantly decreased in long term. The ADM group presented superior results considering professional esthetic perception.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments longitudinally promoted significant gain of keratinized tissue width and thickness with superior outcomes for the FGG group. The ADM group demonstrated more tissue contraction and gingival recession whereas the FGG group presented creeping attachment. Professional esthetic perception was superior for the ADM group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study added important clinical data with long-term evaluation of ADM compared with FGG.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients were originally included and evaluated by de Resende et al. (Clin Oral Investig 23:539-550, 2019), and 12 accepted to participate in this longitudinal evaluation. Clinical parameters evaluated were recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and soft tissue thickness (TT). In addition, esthetic perception was evaluated by patients and by a calibrated periodontist. Data were evaluated by ANOVA complemented by Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: After 15 years, both treatments provided a significant increase in KTW and TT but with superior results for the FGG group (p < 0.05). No differences were observed between groups for PD and CAL. In the ADM group, RD significantly increased in long term, as well as the rate of tissue contraction. The percentage of shrinkage for the ADM group was 59.6%. Conversely, the FGG group presented a creeping attachment of 17.6% and RD significantly decreased in long term. The ADM group presented superior results considering professional esthetic perception.
CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments longitudinally promoted significant gain of keratinized tissue width and thickness with superior outcomes for the FGG group. The ADM group demonstrated more tissue contraction and gingival recession whereas the FGG group presented creeping attachment. Professional esthetic perception was superior for the ADM group.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study added important clinical data with long-term evaluation of ADM compared with FGG.