Journal of periodontology · 2013
Randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating connective tissue graft plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: 2-year follow-up.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Santamaria Mauro Pedrine, da Silva Feitosa Daniela, Casati Marcio Zaffalon, Nociti Francisco Humberto, Sallum Antônio Wilson, Sallum Enilson Antônio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this clinical study is to evaluate the 2-year term results of gingival recession (GR) associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) treated by connective tissue graft (CTG) alone or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CTG+R).
METHODS: Thirty-six patients with Miller Class I buccal GR associated with NCCLs completed the follow-up. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative GR, clinical attachment level (CAL), and cervical lesion height coverage were measured at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after treatment.
RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft-tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, relative GR, or CAL after 2 years. Cervical lesion height coverage was 79.31% ± 18.51% for CTG and 71.95% ± 13.25% for CTG+R (P >0.05). Estimated root coverage was 91.56% ± 11.74% for CTG and 93.29% ± 7.97% for CTG+R (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage after 2 years of follow-up.
METHODS: Thirty-six patients with Miller Class I buccal GR associated with NCCLs completed the follow-up. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative GR, clinical attachment level (CAL), and cervical lesion height coverage were measured at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after treatment.
RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft-tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, relative GR, or CAL after 2 years. Cervical lesion height coverage was 79.31% ± 18.51% for CTG and 71.95% ± 13.25% for CTG+R (P >0.05). Estimated root coverage was 91.56% ± 11.74% for CTG and 93.29% ± 7.97% for CTG+R (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage after 2 years of follow-up.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedConnective TissueDental Restoration, PermanentFeeding BehaviorFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGingivaGingival HemorrhageGingival RecessionGlass Ionomer CementsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOral HygienePeriodontal Attachment LossPeriodontal IndexPeriodontal PocketResin CementsSurgical FlapsTooth CervixTooth RootTooth WearToothbrushingYoung Adult