A Roman1, A Soancă, A Kasaj, S-I Stratul. 1. Department of Periodontology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) plus coronally advanced flap (CAF) would improve the treatment outcomes of Miller class I and II gingival recessions when compared with the same technique (SCTG plusCAF) alone. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized, parallel, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. Forty-two patients were randomly assigned in the test group (SCTG plus EMD) and in the control group (SCTG). Patients had at least one gingival recession ≥ 2 mm. The clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 14 d, 1, 3, 6 and 12 mo follow-up time points. RESULTS:Forty-two patients, 21 in the test group (SCTG plus EMD) and 21 in the control group (SCTG), aged 21-48 years (mean age 31 ± 8.56) were initially included in the study. Both treatments, STCG plus EMD and SCTG, resulted in a significant final mean root coverage (2.91 ± 0.95mm and 2.91 ± 1.29 mm, respectively) (p < 0.001) and in a high mean percentage of root coverage (82.25 ± 22.20% and 89.75 ± 17.33%, respectively) (p < 0.001), 1 year after surgery. The differences in mean root coverage recorded for the two techniques after 1 year, were not statistically significant (p = 0.19). Complete root coverage was achieved in 56.5% of patients treated with SCTG plus EMD and in 70.6% of patients treated with SCTG (p = 0.275), 1 year after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to demonstrate any additional clinical benefits when EMD was added to SCTG plusCAF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the combination of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) plus coronally advanced flap (CAF) would improve the treatment outcomes of Miller class I and II gingival recessions when compared with the same technique (SCTG plus CAF) alone. METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized, parallel, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. Forty-two patients were randomly assigned in the test group (SCTG plus EMD) and in the control group (SCTG). Patients had at least one gingival recession ≥ 2 mm. The clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 14 d, 1, 3, 6 and 12 mo follow-up time points. RESULTS: Forty-two patients, 21 in the test group (SCTG plus EMD) and 21 in the control group (SCTG), aged 21-48 years (mean age 31 ± 8.56) were initially included in the study. Both treatments, STCG plus EMD and SCTG, resulted in a significant final mean root coverage (2.91 ± 0.95mm and 2.91 ± 1.29 mm, respectively) (p < 0.001) and in a high mean percentage of root coverage (82.25 ± 22.20% and 89.75 ± 17.33%, respectively) (p < 0.001), 1 year after surgery. The differences in mean root coverage recorded for the two techniques after 1 year, were not statistically significant (p = 0.19). Complete root coverage was achieved in 56.5% of patients treated with SCTG plus EMD and in 70.6% of patients treated with SCTG (p = 0.275), 1 year after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to demonstrate any additional clinical benefits when EMD was added to SCTG plus CAF.
Authors: Y Shirakata; T Nakamura; Y Shinohara; K Nakamura-Hasegawa; C Hashiguchi; N Takeuchi; T Imafuji; A Sculean; K Noguchi Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.573