Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2018
Comparison of minimally invasive coronally advanced flap and modified coronally advanced flap for the management of multiple adjacent gingival recession defects: A split mouth randomized control 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.
Rajendran Valliammai, Uppoor Ashita, Kadakampally David, Mannava Yamini
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Various minimally invasive surgical approaches are proposed for the management of gingival recession. A modified surgical approach coined as minimally invasive coronally advanced flap (MICAF) was compared with modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) for the management of multiple adjacent gingival recession defects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven systemically healthy subjects with bilateral multiple adjacent maxillary facial gingival recession defects (Miller I) were included in this study. In each patient, MICAF performed on one side and on the other side MCAF was performed. Comparisons of the surgical sites were made with clinical measurements at 6 months follow-up.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between MICAF and MCAF sites in the change in gingival recession depth, gingival recession width, clinical attachment level, width of the keratinized tissue, mean, and complete root coverage after 6 months. However, patient reported outcomes of esthetics and postoperative morbidity were statistically significant (P <0.001) between the MICAF and the MCAF sides with better results in the MICAF side.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the confines of this study, the results depicted that MICAF is more patient-friendly procedure with better patient acceptance. Further, long-term studies with more sample sizes are needed for a stronger evidence base.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Miller Class I gingival recessions can be treated with the MICAF with successful clinical outcomes and patient acceptance. This paper reports the clinical and patient reported outcomes of the MICAF and the MCAF.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven systemically healthy subjects with bilateral multiple adjacent maxillary facial gingival recession defects (Miller I) were included in this study. In each patient, MICAF performed on one side and on the other side MCAF was performed. Comparisons of the surgical sites were made with clinical measurements at 6 months follow-up.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between MICAF and MCAF sites in the change in gingival recession depth, gingival recession width, clinical attachment level, width of the keratinized tissue, mean, and complete root coverage after 6 months. However, patient reported outcomes of esthetics and postoperative morbidity were statistically significant (P <0.001) between the MICAF and the MCAF sides with better results in the MICAF side.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the confines of this study, the results depicted that MICAF is more patient-friendly procedure with better patient acceptance. Further, long-term studies with more sample sizes are needed for a stronger evidence base.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Miller Class I gingival recessions can be treated with the MICAF with successful clinical outcomes and patient acceptance. This paper reports the clinical and patient reported outcomes of the MICAF and the MCAF.