Contemporary clinical dentistry · 2017
Patient-centered Microsurgical Management of Gingival Recession using Coronally Advanced Flap with Either Platelet-rich Fibrin or Connective Tissue Graft: A Comparative Analysis.
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.
Kumar Archana, Bains Vivek Kumar, Jhingran Rajesh, Srivastava Ruchi, Madan Rohit, Rizvi Iram
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate autologous platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) in gingival recession defects in conjunction with coronally advanced flap (CAF) using a microsurgical technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five Class I and II recession defects were randomly equally (n = 15) divided into three groups: Group I sites treated with CAF with PRF, Group II sites treated with CAF with CTG, and Group III sites treated with CAF alone using microsurgical approach. Parameters recorded were vertical gingival recession (VGR) and horizontal gingival recession (HGR), % complete root coverage (CRC), patient comfort score (PCS), patient esthetic score (PES), and hypersensitivity score (HS) at 10 days, 3 months, and 6 months.
RESULTS: CAF surgery alone and in combination with PRF or CTG are effective procedures to cover denuded roots with mean VGR values of 1.26 ± 0.70 mm (74.4%), 1.26 ± 0.59 mm (58%), and 1.06 ± 0.79 mm (53.3%) for Groups I, II, and III, respectively. In terms of CRC achieved at 6 months, results showed that 100% CRC was obtained in 60% sites of Group I, 20% sites of Group II, and 27% sites of Group III. Patient response and acceptance for surgical treatment modality in terms of PCS and PES were highest for Group I (PRF and CAF) followed by Group III and Group II, and there was decrease in HS for Group I (PRF and CAF) while no significant changes in HS were observed for Group II and Group III. At the end of 6 months follow-up, there was a significant increase in gingival thickness measurements using transgingival probing in Group II, whereas nonsignificant changes were observed in Group I and Group III.
CONCLUSIONS: A long-term multicenter randomized controlled clinical study may be necessary to evaluate the clinical outcome for autologous PRF in comparison to CTG and CAF alone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five Class I and II recession defects were randomly equally (n = 15) divided into three groups: Group I sites treated with CAF with PRF, Group II sites treated with CAF with CTG, and Group III sites treated with CAF alone using microsurgical approach. Parameters recorded were vertical gingival recession (VGR) and horizontal gingival recession (HGR), % complete root coverage (CRC), patient comfort score (PCS), patient esthetic score (PES), and hypersensitivity score (HS) at 10 days, 3 months, and 6 months.
RESULTS: CAF surgery alone and in combination with PRF or CTG are effective procedures to cover denuded roots with mean VGR values of 1.26 ± 0.70 mm (74.4%), 1.26 ± 0.59 mm (58%), and 1.06 ± 0.79 mm (53.3%) for Groups I, II, and III, respectively. In terms of CRC achieved at 6 months, results showed that 100% CRC was obtained in 60% sites of Group I, 20% sites of Group II, and 27% sites of Group III. Patient response and acceptance for surgical treatment modality in terms of PCS and PES were highest for Group I (PRF and CAF) followed by Group III and Group II, and there was decrease in HS for Group I (PRF and CAF) while no significant changes in HS were observed for Group II and Group III. At the end of 6 months follow-up, there was a significant increase in gingival thickness measurements using transgingival probing in Group II, whereas nonsignificant changes were observed in Group I and Group III.
CONCLUSIONS: A long-term multicenter randomized controlled clinical study may be necessary to evaluate the clinical outcome for autologous PRF in comparison to CTG and CAF alone.