Journal of periodontology · 2011
Living cellular construct for increasing the width of keratinized gingiva: results from a randomized, within-patient, controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка 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.
McGuire Michael K, Scheyer E Todd, Nevins Marc L, Neiva Rodrigo, Cochran David L, Mellonig James T, Giannobile William V, Bates Damien
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The standard of care for increasing keratinized gingiva adjacent to teeth that do not require root coverage is the free gingival graft (FGG). A pilot study indicated that the use of a living cellular construct (LCC) could be effective in this clinical scenario.
METHODS: A pivotal, multicenter, randomized, within-patient, controlled, open-label trial was conducted (N = 96 patients). After removing the mucosa and keratinized gingiva from the test site, either an LCC or FGG was applied. The primary efficacy endpoint was the ability of the LCC to regenerate ≥2 mm keratinized gingiva at 6 months. Secondary measures were the same color and texture as the adjacent tissue, a 1-mm width of keratinized gingiva at 6 months, patient treatment preference, surgical site sensitivity at 1 week, and patient-reported pain after 3 days. Safety was assessed by reports of adverse events.
RESULTS: At 6 months, the LCC regenerated ≥2 mm of keratinized gingiva in 95.3% of patients (81 of 85 patients; P <0.001 versus a 50% predefined standard). As expected, the FGG generated more keratinized gingiva than the LCC (4.57 ± 1.0 mm versus 3.2 ± 1.1 mm, respectively). The gingiva regenerated with the LCC matched the color and texture of the adjacent gingiva. All patients achieved ≥1 mm keratinized gingiva with the LCC treatment by 6 months, and more patients preferred treatment with the LCC than with the FGG. No difference in sensitivity or pain was noted between the treatments. The treatments were well tolerated, and reported adverse events were typical for this type of periodontal surgery.
CONCLUSION: The use of an LCC may provide a safe and effective therapy for augmenting the zone of keratinized gingiva.
METHODS: A pivotal, multicenter, randomized, within-patient, controlled, open-label trial was conducted (N = 96 patients). After removing the mucosa and keratinized gingiva from the test site, either an LCC or FGG was applied. The primary efficacy endpoint was the ability of the LCC to regenerate ≥2 mm keratinized gingiva at 6 months. Secondary measures were the same color and texture as the adjacent tissue, a 1-mm width of keratinized gingiva at 6 months, patient treatment preference, surgical site sensitivity at 1 week, and patient-reported pain after 3 days. Safety was assessed by reports of adverse events.
RESULTS: At 6 months, the LCC regenerated ≥2 mm of keratinized gingiva in 95.3% of patients (81 of 85 patients; P <0.001 versus a 50% predefined standard). As expected, the FGG generated more keratinized gingiva than the LCC (4.57 ± 1.0 mm versus 3.2 ± 1.1 mm, respectively). The gingiva regenerated with the LCC matched the color and texture of the adjacent gingiva. All patients achieved ≥1 mm keratinized gingiva with the LCC treatment by 6 months, and more patients preferred treatment with the LCC than with the FGG. No difference in sensitivity or pain was noted between the treatments. The treatments were well tolerated, and reported adverse events were typical for this type of periodontal surgery.
CONCLUSION: The use of an LCC may provide a safe and effective therapy for augmenting the zone of keratinized gingiva.