AIM: To describe the histological and clinical outcomes of the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) in combination with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of localized Miller class-I gingival recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gingival recession defects were surgically created on 12 minipigs. The defects were randomly treated with either the CAF procedure and the interposition of a CM (test) or the CAF alone (control). Clinical and histological outcomes at 1, 4 and 12 weeks were evaluated. RESULTS: Histometrically, in the test group, there was a shorter junctional epithelial dimension [2.26 (SD 0.23) mm] compared with the control [2.79 (SD 0.77) mm]. On the contrary, the amount of newly formed cementum was larger in the test group [1.08 (SD 0.41) mm] than in the control group [0.75 (SD 0.25) mm], although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques rendered similar clinical outcomes, achieving complete root coverage at the end of the study. Nevertheless, the CM graft attained more tissue regeneration, characterized by a shorter epithelium and a larger new cementum formation. The use of a xenogeneic CM resulted in the incorporation of the xenograft within the adjacent host connective tissues in the absence of significant inflammation.
AIM: To describe the histological and clinical outcomes of the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) in combination with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of localized Miller class-I gingival recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Gingival recession defects were surgically created on 12 minipigs. The defects were randomly treated with either the CAF procedure and the interposition of a CM (test) or the CAF alone (control). Clinical and histological outcomes at 1, 4 and 12 weeks were evaluated. RESULTS: Histometrically, in the test group, there was a shorter junctional epithelial dimension [2.26 (SD 0.23) mm] compared with the control [2.79 (SD 0.77) mm]. On the contrary, the amount of newly formed cementum was larger in the test group [1.08 (SD 0.41) mm] than in the control group [0.75 (SD 0.25) mm], although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques rendered similar clinical outcomes, achieving complete root coverage at the end of the study. Nevertheless, the CM graft attained more tissue regeneration, characterized by a shorter epithelium and a larger new cementum formation. The use of a xenogeneic CM resulted in the incorporation of the xenograft within the adjacent host connective tissues in the absence of significant inflammation.
Authors: Daniel S Thoma; AbdulMonem Alshihri; Alain Fontolliet; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Goran I Benic Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Kleber Tanaka Suzuki; Cristhiam de Jesus Hernandez Martinez; Milena Irie Suemi; Daniela Bazan Palioto; Michel Reis Messora; Sérgio Luis Scombatti de Souza; Arthur Belem Novaes; Flavia A Chaves Furlaneto; Mario Taba Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Maurizio S Tonetti; Pierpaolo Cortellini; Gaia Pellegrini; Michele Nieri; Daniele Bonaccini; Mario Allegri; Philippe Bouchard; Francesco Cairo; Gianpaolo Conforti; Ioannis Fourmousis; Filippo Graziani; Adrian Guerrero; Jan Halben; Jacques Malet; Giulio Rasperini; Heinz Topoll; Hannes Wachtel; Beat Wallkamm; Ion Zabalegui; Otto Zuhr Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 8.728