Acellular dermal matrix allograft. The results of controlled randomized clinical studies.

The aim of this presentation was to discuss the effectiveness of the acellular dermal matrix in root coverage therapy and in alveolar ridge augmentation, based on three controlled randomized clinical trials conducted by our research team (Novaes Jr et al., 2001; Barros et al., 2005; Luczyszyn et al., 2005). The first and second studies highlight the allograft's performance in the treatment of gingival recession. In both studies, clinical parameters were assessed prior to surgery and 6 or 12 months post-surgery. The first one compared the use of the acellular dermal matrix with the subepithelial connective tissue graft and showed 1.83 and 2.10 mm of recession reduction, respectively. Because no statistically significant differences between the groups were observed, it was concluded that the allograft can be used as a substitute for the autograft. In the second study, a new surgical approach was compared to a conventional surgical procedure described by Langer and Langer in 1985. A statistically significant greater recession reduction favoring the test procedure was achieved. The percentage of root coverage was 82.5% and 62.3% for test and control groups. Thus the new technique was considered more suitable for the treatment of gingival recessions with the allograft. Finally, the third study evaluated the allograft as a membrane, associated or not with a resorbable hydroxyapatite in bone regeneration to prevent ridge deformities. In one group the extraction sockets were covered only by the allograft and in the other, the alveoli were also filled with the resorbable hydroxyapatite. After six months, both treatments were able to preserve ridge thickness, considering the pre-operative values. In conclusion, no adverse healing events were noted with the use of allograft in site preservation procedures, and sites treated with the combination of allograft plus resorbable hydroxyapatite showed significantly greater ridge thickness preservation at six months when compared to sites treated with allograft alone (6.8 +/- 1.26 and 5.53 +/- 1.06 respectively).