Journal of periodontology · 2001
Comparative 6-month clinical study of a subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of gingival recession.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Novaes A B, Grisi D C, Molina G O, Souza S L, Taba M, Grisi M F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Different techniques have been proposed for the treatment of gingival recessions. This study compared the clinical results of gingival recession treatment using a subepithelial connective tissue graft and an acellular dermal matrix allograft.
METHODS: Nine patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. A total of 30 recessions were treated and randomly assigned to the test group and the contralateral recession to the control group. In the control group, the exposed root surfaces were treated by the placement of a connective tissue graft in combination with a coronally positioned flap; in the test group, an acellular dermal matrix allograft was used as a substitute for palatal donor tissue. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and width of keratinized tissue were measured 2 weeks prior to surgery and 3 and 6 months postsurgery.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the test group and the control group in terms of recession reduction, clinical attachment gain, and reduction in probing depth. The control group had a statistically significant increased area of keratinized tissue after 3 months compared to the test group. Both procedures, however, produced an increase in keratinized tissue after 6 months, with no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSION: The acellular dermal matrix allograft may be a substitute for palatal donor tissue in root coverage procedures.
METHODS: Nine patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. A total of 30 recessions were treated and randomly assigned to the test group and the contralateral recession to the control group. In the control group, the exposed root surfaces were treated by the placement of a connective tissue graft in combination with a coronally positioned flap; in the test group, an acellular dermal matrix allograft was used as a substitute for palatal donor tissue. Probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and width of keratinized tissue were measured 2 weeks prior to surgery and 3 and 6 months postsurgery.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the test group and the control group in terms of recession reduction, clinical attachment gain, and reduction in probing depth. The control group had a statistically significant increased area of keratinized tissue after 3 months compared to the test group. Both procedures, however, produced an increase in keratinized tissue after 6 months, with no statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSION: The acellular dermal matrix allograft may be a substitute for palatal donor tissue in root coverage procedures.