Ajay Mahajan1, Jaya Dixit, Umesh Pratap Verma. 1. Department of Periodontics, King George's University of Dental Sciences, Lucknow, India. julius05@rediffmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate acellular dermal matrix (ADM) graft in terms of patient satisfaction and its effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession. METHODS:Fourteen patients (seven males and seven females) with Miller Class I and II recessions > or =3 mm participated in this 6-month clinical study. They were assigned randomly to the ADM group (ADM graft and coronally positioned flap [CPF]) or the CPF group (CPF alone). Results were evaluated based on parameters measuring patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes associated with the two treatment procedures. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: The mean recession was 4.0 +/- 1.0 mm and 3.7 +/- 0.7 mm for the ADM and CPF groups, respectively. For the ADM group, the defect coverage was 3.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 97.14% compared to the CPF group, in which the defect coverage was 2.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 77.42%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the remaining clinical parameters and overall patient satisfaction except in criteria related to patient comfort and cost effectiveness, in which CPF alone produced significantly better results (P <0.03). CONCLUSIONS: ADM graft is significantly superior with regard to effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession than CPF alone. CPF emerges as a better option than ADM graft in terms of cost effectiveness and patient comfort.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The present randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate acellular dermal matrix (ADM) graft in terms of patient satisfaction and its effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession. METHODS: Fourteen patients (seven males and seven females) with Miller Class I and II recessions > or =3 mm participated in this 6-month clinical study. They were assigned randomly to the ADM group (ADM graft and coronally positioned flap [CPF]) or the CPF group (CPF alone). Results were evaluated based on parameters measuring patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes associated with the two treatment procedures. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: The mean recession was 4.0 +/- 1.0 mm and 3.7 +/- 0.7 mm for the ADM and CPF groups, respectively. For the ADM group, the defect coverage was 3.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 97.14% compared to the CPF group, in which the defect coverage was 2.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 77.42%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the remaining clinical parameters and overall patient satisfaction except in criteria related to patient comfort and cost effectiveness, in which CPF alone produced significantly better results (P <0.03). CONCLUSIONS: ADM graft is significantly superior with regard to effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession than CPF alone. CPF emerges as a better option than ADM graft in terms of cost effectiveness and patient comfort.