Journal of dentistry · 2012
Root coverage stability of the subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration: a 30-month follow-up clinical trial.
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.
Rosetti Elizabeth P, Marcantonio Elcio, Zuza Elizangela P, Marcantonio Rosemary A C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term clinical effects produced by subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration combined with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (GTR-DFDBA) in the treatment of gingival recessions in a 30-month follow-up clinical trial.
METHODS: Twenty-four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre-molar Miller class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. GTR-DFDBA and SCTG treatments were performed in a randomized selection in a split-mouth design. The clinical measurements included root coverage (RC), gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue width (KTW). These clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 18 and 30months post-surgery.
RESULTS: The changes in RC, GR, PD and CAL did not show significant differences between groups (p>0.05). Both procedures promoted similar RC (GTR-DFDBA: 87% and SCTG: 95.5%) and similar reduction in GR (GTR-DFDBA: 3.25mm and SCTG: 3.9mm), PD (GTR-DFDBA: 1.6mm and SCTG: 1.2mm) and CAL (GTR-DFDBA: 4.9mm and SCTG: 5.0mm). The increase in KTW was significantly higher (p=0.02) in the SCTG group (3.5mm) than in the GTR-DFDBA group (2.4mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques for treatment of gingival recession (SCTG and GTR-DFDBA) lead to favourable and long-term stable results, but SCTG promoted a more favourable increase in keratinized tissue.
METHODS: Twenty-four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre-molar Miller class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. GTR-DFDBA and SCTG treatments were performed in a randomized selection in a split-mouth design. The clinical measurements included root coverage (RC), gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue width (KTW). These clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 18 and 30months post-surgery.
RESULTS: The changes in RC, GR, PD and CAL did not show significant differences between groups (p>0.05). Both procedures promoted similar RC (GTR-DFDBA: 87% and SCTG: 95.5%) and similar reduction in GR (GTR-DFDBA: 3.25mm and SCTG: 3.9mm), PD (GTR-DFDBA: 1.6mm and SCTG: 1.2mm) and CAL (GTR-DFDBA: 4.9mm and SCTG: 5.0mm). The increase in KTW was significantly higher (p=0.02) in the SCTG group (3.5mm) than in the GTR-DFDBA group (2.4mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques for treatment of gingival recession (SCTG and GTR-DFDBA) lead to favourable and long-term stable results, but SCTG promoted a more favourable increase in keratinized tissue.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAdultBicuspidBone TransplantationConnective TissueCuspidFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGingivaGingival RecessionGuided Tissue Regeneration, PeriodontalHumansKeratinsLongitudinal StudiesMaleMembranes, ArtificialMiddle AgedPeriodontal Attachment LossPeriodontal PocketTooth RootTreatment Outcome