Journal of clinical periodontology · 2012
Treatment of gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap and a xenogeneic collagen matrix: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное 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.
Jepsen Karin, Jepsen Søren, Zucchelli Giovanni, Stefanini Martina, de Sanctis Massimo, Baldini Nicola, Greven Björn, Heinz Bernd, Wennström Jan, Cassel Björn, Vignoletti Fabio, Sanz Mariano
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) in combination with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of localized recession defects.
MATERIAL & METHODS: In a multicentre single-blinded, randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial, 90 recessions (Miller I, II) in 45 patients received either CAF + CM or CAF alone.
RESULTS: At 6 months, root coverage (primary outcome) was 75.29% for test and 72.66% for control defects (p = 0.169), with 36% of test and 31% of control defects exhibiting complete coverage. The increase in mean width of keratinized tissue (KT) was higher in test (from 1.97 to 2.90 mm) than in control defects (from 2.00 to 2.57 mm) (p = 0.036). Likewise, test sites had more gain in gingival thickness (GT) (0.59 mm) than control sites (0.34 mm) (p = 0.003). Larger (≥3 mm) recessions (n = 35 patients) treated with CM showed higher root coverage (72.03% versus 66.16%, p = 0.043), as well as more gain in KT and GT.
CONCLUSIONS: CAF + CM was not superior with regard to root coverage, but enhanced gingival thickness and width of keratinized tissue when compared with CAF alone. For the coverage of larger defects, CAF + CM was more effective.
MATERIAL & METHODS: In a multicentre single-blinded, randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial, 90 recessions (Miller I, II) in 45 patients received either CAF + CM or CAF alone.
RESULTS: At 6 months, root coverage (primary outcome) was 75.29% for test and 72.66% for control defects (p = 0.169), with 36% of test and 31% of control defects exhibiting complete coverage. The increase in mean width of keratinized tissue (KT) was higher in test (from 1.97 to 2.90 mm) than in control defects (from 2.00 to 2.57 mm) (p = 0.036). Likewise, test sites had more gain in gingival thickness (GT) (0.59 mm) than control sites (0.34 mm) (p = 0.003). Larger (≥3 mm) recessions (n = 35 patients) treated with CM showed higher root coverage (72.03% versus 66.16%, p = 0.043), as well as more gain in KT and GT.
CONCLUSIONS: CAF + CM was not superior with regard to root coverage, but enhanced gingival thickness and width of keratinized tissue when compared with CAF alone. For the coverage of larger defects, CAF + CM was more effective.