| Literature DB >> 22858709 |
Adriana Campos Passanezi Sant'ana1, Bruna F Rahal Ferraz, Maria Lúcia Rubo de Rezende, Sebastião Luiz Aguiar Greghi, Carla Andreotti Damante, Euloir Passanezi.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Many techniques have been proposed for root coverage. However, none of them presents predictable results in deep and wide recessions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22858709 PMCID: PMC3881776 DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000300016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Oral Sci ISSN: 1678-7757 Impact factor: 2.698
Figure 1Prepare of donor site. (A) Occlusal view from edentulous ridge selected for the creation of a surgical alveolus; (B) Rising of a full thickness flap and creation of a surgical socket by perforation of alveolar ridge with a diamond bur in high speed with vigorous irrigation; (C) Bovine type 1 collagen barrier membrane trimmed to overlap defects margins in 2-3 mm positioned over the defect; (D) Primary closure of the flaps without tension with 4-0 silk
Figure 2Treatment of recession defect by the newly forming bone technique. A: Buccal view of the 5-mm-deep and 4-mm wide recession defect at the mandibular right second premolar; B: Panoramic x-ray view of the area. A slight loss of interproximal bone at distal site of the mandibular right second premolar can be noticed; C: Trapezoidal full thickness flap at receptor site 21 days after surgical creation of alveolar socket; D: Occlusal view of donor site containing the healing tissue after rising of a full-thickness flap; E: Positioning of the newly forming bone at the receptor site. A slight compression with saline solution embedded gauze warranted a close contact between the graft material and the root surface; F: Flaps displaced coronally and sutured at the level of cementoenamel junction without tension
Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), recession depth (RD), keratinized gingiva width (KGW) and percentage of root coverage (%RC) observed at baseline and postoperative examinations
| Case 1 | Baseline | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | - |
| 3 mouths | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 60 | |
| 6 mouths | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 60 | |
| 9 mouths | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 60 | |
| Difference | -1 | 4 | - | - | -3 | 0 | - | |
| Case 2 | Baseline | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | - |
| 3 mouths | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 60 | |
| 6 mouths | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 40 | |
| 9 mouths | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 40 | |
| Difference | 0 | 2 | - | - | -2 | 1 | - | |
| Case 3 | Baseline | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | - |
| 3 mouths | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 60 | |
| 6 mouths | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 40 | |
| 9 mouths | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 40 | |
| Difference | -1 | 3 | - | - | -2 | 1 | - | |
| Case 4 | Baseline | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | - |
| 3 mouths | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 75 | |
| 6 mouths | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 75 | |
| 9 mouths | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 75 | |
| Difference | -2 | 5 | - | - | -3 | 1 | - |
Figure 3Buccal view of the area 9 months after treatment, suggesting gingival health and reduction of recession