AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to improve root coverage with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) during a 2-year follow-up. METHODS:Fifteen patients each with two single and similar bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions (30 recessions) were selected. Each recession was randomly assigned to the test group (CAF+EMD) or the control group (CAF only). Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months were recession depth (R), recession width (WR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue (KT). RESULTS: Reduction of R resulted in a significant CAL gain in both groups, whereas PD was not altered. In the test group, R decreased from 4.07 mm (SD+/-0.59) at baseline to 0.47 mm (SD+/-0.74) at 24 months, corresponding to a mean root coverage (MRC) of 90.67%, whereas in the control group R shrank from 4.13 mm (SD+/-0.74) at baseline to 0.60 mm (SD+/-0.83) at 24 months (MRC=86.67%). Complete root coverage was achieved at 24 months in 73.33% and 60% of the two groups. A significant KT increase was observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:Root coverage outcomes were similar in both groups and no statistically significant differences were found at all between them. Hence, the additional use of EMD to CAF is not justified for clinical benefits of root coverage, but as an attempt of achieving periodontal regeneration rather than repair. Copyright (c) Blackwell Munksgaard, 2005.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to improve root coverage with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) during a 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Fifteen patients each with two single and similar bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions (30 recessions) were selected. Each recession was randomly assigned to the test group (CAF+EMD) or the control group (CAF only). Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months were recession depth (R), recession width (WR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue (KT). RESULTS: Reduction of R resulted in a significant CAL gain in both groups, whereas PD was not altered. In the test group, R decreased from 4.07 mm (SD+/-0.59) at baseline to 0.47 mm (SD+/-0.74) at 24 months, corresponding to a mean root coverage (MRC) of 90.67%, whereas in the control group R shrank from 4.13 mm (SD+/-0.74) at baseline to 0.60 mm (SD+/-0.83) at 24 months (MRC=86.67%). Complete root coverage was achieved at 24 months in 73.33% and 60% of the two groups. A significant KT increase was observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Root coverage outcomes were similar in both groups and no statistically significant differences were found at all between them. Hence, the additional use of EMD to CAF is not justified for clinical benefits of root coverage, but as an attempt of achieving periodontal regeneration rather than repair. Copyright (c) Blackwell Munksgaard, 2005.