A B Novaes1, D C Grisi, G O Molina, S L Souza, M Taba, M F Grisi. 1. Department of Buco-Maxillofacial Surgery and Traumatology and Periodontology, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Brazil. novaesjr@.forp.usp.br
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: V R Balaji; T Ramakrishnan; D Manikandan; R Lambodharan; B Karthikeyan; Thanvir Mohammed Niazi; G Ulaganathan Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2016-10