Journal of periodontology · 2009
Semilunar coronally positioned flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession: a 30-month follow-up study.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Bittencourt Sandro, Ribeiro Erica Del Peloso, Sallum Enilson A, Sallum Antônio W, Nociti Francisco H, Casati Márcio Zaffalon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) or semilunar coronally positioned flap (SCPF) for the treatment of Miller Class I gingival recession defects.
METHODS: Seventeen patients with bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) in maxillary canines or premolars were selected. The recessions were randomly assigned to receive SCPF or SCTG. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and at 6 and 30 months post-surgery. Patient satisfaction with esthetics and root sensitivity was also evaluated.
RESULTS: The root-coverage outcomes obtained at 6 months were maintained throughout the study. At the 30-month examination, the average percentage of root coverage was 89.25% for SCPF and 96.83% for SCTG (P >0.05); complete root coverage was observed in 58.82% and 88.24% of patients, respectively. SCTG maintained a statistically significant increase in TKT (P <0.05) at 30 months. At this time, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to RH, RW, WKT, PD, and CAL. The evaluation of the esthetic outcome by the patient showed a preference for the SCTG treatment. Furthermore, in this group, no patient complained of residual or additional root hypersensitivity. In the SCPF group, three patients had this complaint at 30 months.
CONCLUSIONS: SCPF and SCTG can be successfully used to treat Class I gingival recession, presenting outcomes with long-term stability. However, patient-oriented outcomes, such as esthetics and root sensitivity, favor SCTG therapy.
METHODS: Seventeen patients with bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) in maxillary canines or premolars were selected. The recessions were randomly assigned to receive SCPF or SCTG. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and at 6 and 30 months post-surgery. Patient satisfaction with esthetics and root sensitivity was also evaluated.
RESULTS: The root-coverage outcomes obtained at 6 months were maintained throughout the study. At the 30-month examination, the average percentage of root coverage was 89.25% for SCPF and 96.83% for SCTG (P >0.05); complete root coverage was observed in 58.82% and 88.24% of patients, respectively. SCTG maintained a statistically significant increase in TKT (P <0.05) at 30 months. At this time, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to RH, RW, WKT, PD, and CAL. The evaluation of the esthetic outcome by the patient showed a preference for the SCTG treatment. Furthermore, in this group, no patient complained of residual or additional root hypersensitivity. In the SCPF group, three patients had this complaint at 30 months.
CONCLUSIONS: SCPF and SCTG can be successfully used to treat Class I gingival recession, presenting outcomes with long-term stability. However, patient-oriented outcomes, such as esthetics and root sensitivity, favor SCTG therapy.