Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology · 2016
Comparison of Extracellular Matrix Membrane and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage in Class I/II Gingival Recession Defects: A Split Mouth Study.
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.
M Yogini, Mlv Prabhuji, Bv Karthikeyan, N Sai Jyothsna
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of extracellular matrix membrane (DynaMatrix®) in obtaining root coverage and compare it to the connective tissue graft for the treatment of Miller's Class I or Class II recession defects.
METHODS: Ten patients with a mean age of 31.2 years with bilateral Miller's Class I or Class II recession defects in the upper premolars were recruited. Each patient contributed two defects that were randomly treated by coronally advanced fl ap with connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG) and by coronally advanced flap underlaid with extracellular membrane (DynaMatrix®; CAF+DM). All the clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, three months and six months after surgery and data were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: The results of this study demonstrated that both the procedures were effective and predictable in root coverage procedures. However, no statistically signifi cant differences in gingival recession reduction were noted between extra cellular membrane and gold standard connective tissue graft.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this clinical study, the use of extracellular membrane (DynaMatrix®) may represent an acceptable alternative to the connective tissue graft for treating gingival recession.
METHODS: Ten patients with a mean age of 31.2 years with bilateral Miller's Class I or Class II recession defects in the upper premolars were recruited. Each patient contributed two defects that were randomly treated by coronally advanced fl ap with connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG) and by coronally advanced flap underlaid with extracellular membrane (DynaMatrix®; CAF+DM). All the clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, three months and six months after surgery and data were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: The results of this study demonstrated that both the procedures were effective and predictable in root coverage procedures. However, no statistically signifi cant differences in gingival recession reduction were noted between extra cellular membrane and gold standard connective tissue graft.
CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this clinical study, the use of extracellular membrane (DynaMatrix®) may represent an acceptable alternative to the connective tissue graft for treating gingival recession.