Journal of periodontology · 2009
The association of a polydioxanone tent without a guided tissue regeneration membrane to a coronal sliding flap for root coverage.
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.
de Toledo Lourenço Aneliese Holetz, de Toledo Lourenço Evandro, Fraga Marcelo Reis, Vitral Robert Willer Farinazzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study verifies clinical results of using a polydioxanone (PDS) tent without a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) membrane for root coverage.
METHODS: Forty-nine gingival recessions (in 16 patients) were treated with a PDS tent inserted under the coronally positioned gingival flap. The recession level (RL), probing depth (PD), and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were registered. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS: In 48 cases, there was a significant reduction in the RL (2.55 +/- 1.11 mm on day 0 and 0.34 +/- 0.65 mm on day 120; P = 0.0001). PD showed the same values at the beginning and end of treatment in 47 cases (0.99 +/- 0.71 mm on days 0 and 120; z = 0.000). There was a significant increase of KMW in 46 cases (2.38 +/- 0.76 mm on day 0 and 3.18 +/- 0.90 mm on day 120; P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The association of the PDS tent without the GTR membrane to a coronal sliding flap for root coverage of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions allows root coverage, gain of attachment level, and an increase of keratinized mucosa. For root coverage, it is not necessary to use the GTR membrane associated to the PDS tent, thereby reducing surgical costs. Future studies should be conducted to assess the sole performance of the PDS as an alternative method to a connective tissue graft and coronal sliding flap, thus decreasing risks and post-surgery discomfort.
METHODS: Forty-nine gingival recessions (in 16 patients) were treated with a PDS tent inserted under the coronally positioned gingival flap. The recession level (RL), probing depth (PD), and keratinized mucosa width (KMW) were registered. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon test.
RESULTS: In 48 cases, there was a significant reduction in the RL (2.55 +/- 1.11 mm on day 0 and 0.34 +/- 0.65 mm on day 120; P = 0.0001). PD showed the same values at the beginning and end of treatment in 47 cases (0.99 +/- 0.71 mm on days 0 and 120; z = 0.000). There was a significant increase of KMW in 46 cases (2.38 +/- 0.76 mm on day 0 and 3.18 +/- 0.90 mm on day 120; P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The association of the PDS tent without the GTR membrane to a coronal sliding flap for root coverage of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions allows root coverage, gain of attachment level, and an increase of keratinized mucosa. For root coverage, it is not necessary to use the GTR membrane associated to the PDS tent, thereby reducing surgical costs. Future studies should be conducted to assess the sole performance of the PDS as an alternative method to a connective tissue graft and coronal sliding flap, thus decreasing risks and post-surgery discomfort.