H L Wang1, P Bunyaratavej, M Labadie, Y Shyr, R L MacNeil. 1. Department of Periodontics/Prevention/Geriatrics, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. homlay@umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In early case studies, use of a collagen barrier as a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) material has shown particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage. The similarities between collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) have made collagen membrane an attractive and a possible alternative material for root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare these 2 techniques, SCTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession treatment. METHODS:Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller's Class I or II (gingival recession > or = 3.0 mm) recession defects were treated either with SCTG or GTRC using a newly designed collagen membrane. Clinical parameters monitored included recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized gingiva (KG), attached gingiva (AG), and recession width (RW), each measured at the mid-buccal area to the nearest 0.5 mm. Measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months. A standard mucogingival surgical procedure was performed. Data were reported as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/residual maximal likelihood (REML)-based mixed effect model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in RD, CAL, KG, and AG between test and control groups at either time period. However, SCTG showed significantly more residual PD and more RW gain when compared to GTRC at 6 months. Both treatments resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction of recession defects (2.5 mm and 2.8 mm), gain of CAL (2.8 mm and 2.3 mm), reduction of RW (1.9 mm and 2.7 mm), and increase of KG (0.7 mm and 1.1 mm) and AG (0.7 mm and 0.5 mm) for GTRC and SCTG, respectively, when comparing 6-month data to baseline. Mean root coverage of 73% (collagen membrane) and 84% (subepithelial connective tissue graft) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 techniques are clinically comparable. Use of a modified collagen membrane to attain root coverage may alleviate the need for donor site procurement of connective tissue.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In early case studies, use of a collagen barrier as a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) material has shown particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage. The similarities between collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) have made collagen membrane an attractive and a possible alternative material for root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare these 2 techniques, SCTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession treatment. METHODS: Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller's Class I or II (gingival recession > or = 3.0 mm) recession defects were treated either with SCTG or GTRC using a newly designed collagen membrane. Clinical parameters monitored included recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized gingiva (KG), attached gingiva (AG), and recession width (RW), each measured at the mid-buccal area to the nearest 0.5 mm. Measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months. A standard mucogingival surgical procedure was performed. Data were reported as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/residual maximal likelihood (REML)-based mixed effect model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in RD, CAL, KG, and AG between test and control groups at either time period. However, SCTG showed significantly more residual PD and more RW gain when compared to GTRC at 6 months. Both treatments resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction of recession defects (2.5 mm and 2.8 mm), gain of CAL (2.8 mm and 2.3 mm), reduction of RW (1.9 mm and 2.7 mm), and increase of KG (0.7 mm and 1.1 mm) and AG (0.7 mm and 0.5 mm) for GTRC and SCTG, respectively, when comparing 6-month data to baseline. Mean root coverage of 73% (collagen membrane) and 84% (subepithelial connective tissue graft) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 techniques are clinically comparable. Use of a modified collagen membrane to attain root coverage may alleviate the need for donor site procurement of connective tissue.