Ronaldo B Santana1, Carolina M L Mattos, Serge Dibart. 1. Graduate Program in Dentistry, Department of Periodontology, Dental School, Federal Fluminense University, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. rbarsantana@ig.com.br
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The semilunar incision was introduced in oral surgery more than a century ago. The semilunar coronally re-positioned flap (SLCRF) is one of the variants of this procedure; however, no previous controlled clinical study has evaluated the SLCRF performed as originally described. The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the SLCRF and coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I recession (GR) defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-two patients, with 22 contra-lateral Miller class I GR defects, were randomly assigned to CAF or SLCRF. Clinical parameters assessed included recession height, width of keratinized tissue, probing depth, vertical clinical attachment level, visual plaque score and bleeding on probing. Clinical recordings were performed at baseline and 6 months later. Inter-measurements differences were analysed with a chi(2) or a paired t-test, with significance set at alpha<0.05. RESULTS: Both flap designs were effective in obtaining and maintaining a coronal displacement of the gingival margin. The CAF resulted in clinical improvements significantly better than SLCRF for percentage of root coverage (RC), frequency of complete RC and gain in clinical attachment level. RC obtained in the immediate post-surgical period of SLCRF-treated sites was not maintained throughout the subsequent evaluations. CONCLUSION: RC is significantly better with CAF compared with the original SLCRF technique in the treatment of shallow maxillary Miller class I GR defects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The semilunar incision was introduced in oral surgery more than a century ago. The semilunar coronally re-positioned flap (SLCRF) is one of the variants of this procedure; however, no previous controlled clinical study has evaluated the SLCRF performed as originally described. The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the SLCRF and coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I recession (GR) defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients, with 22 contra-lateral Miller class I GR defects, were randomly assigned to CAF or SLCRF. Clinical parameters assessed included recession height, width of keratinized tissue, probing depth, vertical clinical attachment level, visual plaque score and bleeding on probing. Clinical recordings were performed at baseline and 6 months later. Inter-measurements differences were analysed with a chi(2) or a paired t-test, with significance set at alpha<0.05. RESULTS: Both flap designs were effective in obtaining and maintaining a coronal displacement of the gingival margin. The CAF resulted in clinical improvements significantly better than SLCRF for percentage of root coverage (RC), frequency of complete RC and gain in clinical attachment level. RC obtained in the immediate post-surgical period of SLCRF-treated sites was not maintained throughout the subsequent evaluations. CONCLUSION: RC is significantly better with CAF compared with the original SLCRF technique in the treatment of shallow maxillary Miller class I GR defects.