Journal of periodontology · 2007
Root surface biomodification with EDTA for the treatment of gingival recession with a semilunar coronally repositioned flap.
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 Antônio, Sallum Antônio Wilson, Nociti Francisco Humberto, Casati Márcio Zaffalon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of gingival recession therapy using the semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SCRF) with or without EDTA application for root surface biomodification.
METHODS: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) were selected. Thirty teeth with recessions were assigned randomly to receive the semilunar coronally repositioned flap with (SCRF-E group) or without (SCRF group) the application of an EDTA gel. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width (WKT) and thickness of keratinized tissue, probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and 6 months post-surgery. Patient perception of root sensitivity and postoperative pain also was evaluated.
RESULTS: Both treatments yielded significant improvements in terms of RH and RW decrease and CAL gain compared to baseline values. For SCRF-E and SCRF, the average root coverage was 70.2% and 90.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), and the complete root coverage was 40.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Only the SCRF group had a significant (P <0.05) increase in WKT. The SCRF group showed a greater reduction (P <0.05) in RW and RH compared to the SCRF-E group. No patient in either group reported any pain during the postoperative course; however, 6 months later, patients in the SCRF-E group complained more of residual or new root sensitivity compared to patients in the SCRF group.
CONCLUSION: The use of EDTA gel as a root surface biomodifier agent negatively affected the outcome of root coverage with the SCRF.
METHODS: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) were selected. Thirty teeth with recessions were assigned randomly to receive the semilunar coronally repositioned flap with (SCRF-E group) or without (SCRF group) the application of an EDTA gel. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width (WKT) and thickness of keratinized tissue, probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and 6 months post-surgery. Patient perception of root sensitivity and postoperative pain also was evaluated.
RESULTS: Both treatments yielded significant improvements in terms of RH and RW decrease and CAL gain compared to baseline values. For SCRF-E and SCRF, the average root coverage was 70.2% and 90.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), and the complete root coverage was 40.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Only the SCRF group had a significant (P <0.05) increase in WKT. The SCRF group showed a greater reduction (P <0.05) in RW and RH compared to the SCRF-E group. No patient in either group reported any pain during the postoperative course; however, 6 months later, patients in the SCRF-E group complained more of residual or new root sensitivity compared to patients in the SCRF group.
CONCLUSION: The use of EDTA gel as a root surface biomodifier agent negatively affected the outcome of root coverage with the SCRF.