| Literature DB >> 25624637 |
Sneha Dani1, Aditi Dhage2, Gayatri Gundannavar3.
Abstract
The desire for improved esthetics has increased tremendously over the years. Periodontal plastic surgery deals with regenerative procedures designed to restore form, function and enhance esthetics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of subepithelial connective tissue graft using pouch and tunnel technique as root coverage procedure. Three patients corresponding to a total of 8 sites participated in the study. Maxillary teeth with miller's class I gingival recession were included in the study. All the sites were treated using subepithelial connective tissue graft using pouch and tunneling technique. Patients were followed up for a period of 6 months and 1 year. All the treated teeth showed 100% root coverage at the end of 6 months and 1 year. Gingival recession is a common occurrence and its prevalence increases with age. It can lead to clinical problems, diminished cosmetic appeal and hence esthetic concern. There are various techniques for root coverage. Subepithelial connective tissue graft has shown the best predictability (95%) of root coverage in Millers class I & II cases. This technique preserves the intermediate papilla, accelerates the initial wound healing & also applies less traction. Due to minimal trauma at the recipient site, this procedure may be advantageous in treatment of recession as compared to other treatment modalities.Entities:
Keywords: Gingival recession; periodontal plastic surgery; subepithelial connective tissue graft
Year: 2014 PMID: 25624637 PMCID: PMC4296465 DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.147431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol ISSN: 0972-124X
Figure 1Miller's Class I gingival recession with respect to 23 and 24
Figure 2Crevicular incisions given and pouch and tunnel prepared
Figure 3Incisions given on the palate
Figure 4Subepithelial connective tissue graft harvested
Figure 5Graft stabilized with 5-0 sutures
Figure 6Sutures placed
Figure 7Periodontal dressing placed
Figure 8At 1 year post-operative follow-up