OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the treatment of gingival recessions by semilunar coronally positioned flap plus enamel matrix derivative (SCPF + EMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty patients with class I localized gingival recession were included. They were randomly allocated in two groups: SCPF + EMD and SCPF. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Patient/professional evaluation of esthetics and root sensitivity was performed. RESULTS: After 12 months, mean root coverage was 1.98 ± 0.33 mm for SCPF + EMD (90.86 ± 14.69%) and 1.85 ± 0.41 mm (79.76 ± 17.44%) for SCPF (p > 0.05). The esthetic evaluation by the patient showed preference for SCPF + EMD. According to the professional evaluation (QCE), the use of EMD decreases the appearance of postoperative scar tissue line. There was a significant reduction in root hypersensitivity with no further complaints by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of EMD provides significantly better esthetics to SCPF, according to patient and professional assessments. SCPF + EMD is effective but not superior to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Previous clinical trials showed that the combination of EMD with coronally advanced flaps may enhance the outcome of root coverage. There is a lack of studies testing the combination of EMD with SCPF. The combination SCPF + EMD provides better esthetics when compared to the SCPF and is effective, but not superior, to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02459704.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the treatment of gingival recessions by semilunar coronally positioned flap plus enamel matrix derivative (SCPF + EMD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with class I localized gingival recession were included. They were randomly allocated in two groups: SCPF + EMD and SCPF. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Patient/professional evaluation of esthetics and root sensitivity was performed. RESULTS: After 12 months, mean root coverage was 1.98 ± 0.33 mm for SCPF + EMD (90.86 ± 14.69%) and 1.85 ± 0.41 mm (79.76 ± 17.44%) for SCPF (p > 0.05). The esthetic evaluation by the patient showed preference for SCPF + EMD. According to the professional evaluation (QCE), the use of EMD decreases the appearance of postoperative scar tissue line. There was a significant reduction in root hypersensitivity with no further complaints by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of EMD provides significantly better esthetics to SCPF, according to patient and professional assessments. SCPF + EMD is effective but not superior to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Previous clinical trials showed that the combination of EMD with coronally advanced flaps may enhance the outcome of root coverage. There is a lack of studies testing the combination of EMD with SCPF. The combination SCPF + EMD provides better esthetics when compared to the SCPF and is effective, but not superior, to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02459704.
Authors: S P Lyngstadaas; J C Wohlfahrt; S J Brookes; M L Paine; M L Snead; J E Reseland Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Leandro Chambrone; Daniela Chambrone; Francisco E Pustiglioni; Luiz A Chambrone; Luiz A Lima Journal: J Dent Date: 2008-06-26 Impact factor: 4.379