Journal of periodontology · 2000
Treatment of gingival recession: comparative study between subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное 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.
Rosetti E P, Marcantonio R A, Rossa C, Chaves E S, Goissis G, Marcantonio E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.
METHODS: Twenty-four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre-molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
RESULTS: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P= 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P<0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P= 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P= 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P= 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques.
METHODS: Twenty-four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre-molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
RESULTS: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P= 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P<0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P= 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P= 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P= 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques.