Journal of periodontology · 2017
Xenogenous Collagen Matrix and/or Enamel Matrix Derivative for Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Part I: Clinical Outcomes.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sangiorgio João Paulo Menck, Neves Felipe Lucas da Silva, Rocha Dos Santos Manuela, França-Grohmann Isabela Lima, Casarin Renato Corrêa Viana, Casati Márcio Zaffalon, Santamaria Mauro Pedrine, Sallum Enilson Antonio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Considering xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) characteristics, it is suggested that their combination could promote superior clinical outcomes in root coverage procedures. Thus, the aim of this parallel, double-masked, dual-center, randomized clinical trial is to evaluate clinical outcomes after treatment of localized gingival recession (GR) by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with CM and/or EMD.
METHODS: Sixty-eight patients presenting one Miller Class I or II GRs were randomly assigned to receive either CAF (n = 17); CAF + CM (n = 17); CAF + EMD (n = 17), or CAF + CM + EMD (n = 17). Recession height, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width and thickness were measured at baseline and 90 days and 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The obtained root coverage was 68.04% ± 24.11% for CAF; 87.20% ± 15.01% for CAF + CM; 88.77% ± 20.66% for CAF + EMD; and 91.59% ± 11.08% for CAF + CM + EMD after 6 months. Groups that received biomaterials showed greater values (P <0.05). Complete root coverage (CRC) for CAF + EMD was 70.59%, significantly superior to CAF alone (23.53%); CAF + CM (52.94%), and CAF + CM + EMD (51.47%) (P <0.05). Keratinized tissue thickness gain was significant only in CM-treated groups (P <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The three approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage. EMD provides highest levels of CRC; however, the addition of CM increases gingival thickness. The combination approach does not seem justified.
METHODS: Sixty-eight patients presenting one Miller Class I or II GRs were randomly assigned to receive either CAF (n = 17); CAF + CM (n = 17); CAF + EMD (n = 17), or CAF + CM + EMD (n = 17). Recession height, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width and thickness were measured at baseline and 90 days and 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS: The obtained root coverage was 68.04% ± 24.11% for CAF; 87.20% ± 15.01% for CAF + CM; 88.77% ± 20.66% for CAF + EMD; and 91.59% ± 11.08% for CAF + CM + EMD after 6 months. Groups that received biomaterials showed greater values (P <0.05). Complete root coverage (CRC) for CAF + EMD was 70.59%, significantly superior to CAF alone (23.53%); CAF + CM (52.94%), and CAF + CM + EMD (51.47%) (P <0.05). Keratinized tissue thickness gain was significant only in CM-treated groups (P <0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The three approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage. EMD provides highest levels of CRC; however, the addition of CM increases gingival thickness. The combination approach does not seem justified.