Leela Rani Moka1, Ramanarayana Boyapati2, Srinivas M3, Narasimha Swamy D4, Chakrapani Swarna3, Madhusudhan Putcha5. 1. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, GSL College of Dental Sciences , Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India . 2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Mamata Dental College , Khammam, Andhra Pradesh, India . 3. Professor, Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences , Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India . 4. Professor & HOD, Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences , Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India . 5. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Dr Sudha & Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences , Chinaoutpalli, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Gingival Recession (GR) occurs in population with low oral hygiene levels. Root coverage may be achieved by a number of surgical techniques, including pedicle gingival grafts, free grafts, connective tissue grafts, gtr may also be used. The objective of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the SemilunarCoronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF) and Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of miller's class I gingival recession defects in maxillary teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty systemically healthy patients, with isolated miller's class 1 gingival recessions, were selected and allocated randomly into two groups, Group I and Group II with 10 patients in each. In Group I, the patients were treated with coronally advanced flap procedure with sling sutures, whereas in Group II, patients were treated with semilunar coronally repositioned flap without sutures. RESULTS: Descriptive statistical analysis has been carried out in the present study. RESULTS on continuous measurements are presented on Mean ± SD. Significance is assessed at 5 % level of significance. Student t-test (two tailed, dependent) has been used to find the significance of study parameters between baseline - 3 months and baseline - 6 months, 90% Confidence interval for mean has been computed. CONCLUSION:CAF provides consistently better results than SCRF With all other parameters, such as clinical attachment levels, percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage and esthetics were taken into account, caf was found to be superior. In contrary to this, there is significant increase in width of keratinized tissue in scrf group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Gingival Recession (GR) occurs in population with low oral hygiene levels. Root coverage may be achieved by a number of surgical techniques, including pedicle gingival grafts, free grafts, connective tissue grafts, gtr may also be used. The objective of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF) and Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of miller's class I gingival recession defects in maxillary teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty systemically healthy patients, with isolated miller's class 1 gingival recessions, were selected and allocated randomly into two groups, Group I and Group II with 10 patients in each. In Group I, the patients were treated with coronally advanced flap procedure with sling sutures, whereas in Group II, patients were treated with semilunar coronally repositioned flap without sutures. RESULTS: Descriptive statistical analysis has been carried out in the present study. RESULTS on continuous measurements are presented on Mean ± SD. Significance is assessed at 5 % level of significance. Student t-test (two tailed, dependent) has been used to find the significance of study parameters between baseline - 3 months and baseline - 6 months, 90% Confidence interval for mean has been computed. CONCLUSION:CAF provides consistently better results than SCRF With all other parameters, such as clinical attachment levels, percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage and esthetics were taken into account, caf was found to be superior. In contrary to this, there is significant increase in width of keratinized tissue in scrf group.
Authors: Karin Jepsen; Søren Jepsen; Giovanni Zucchelli; Martina Stefanini; Massimo de Sanctis; Nicola Baldini; Björn Greven; Bernd Heinz; Jan Wennström; Björn Cassel; Fabio Vignoletti; Mariano Sanz Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Lauro Henrique Souza Lins; Antonio Fernando Martorelli de Lima; Antonio Wilson Sallum Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Petra Hofmänner; Regina Alessandri; Oliver Laugisch; Sofia Aroca; Giovanni E Salvi; Andreas Stavropoulos; Anton Sculean Journal: Quintessence Int Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 1.677