Y Shirakata1, T Nakamura2, Y Shinohara2, K Nakamura-Hasegawa2, C Hashiguchi2, N Takeuchi2, T Imafuji2, A Sculean3, K Noguchi2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan. syoshi@dent.kagoshima-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Periodontology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, 890-8544, Japan. 3. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The potential additive effect of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) for recession coverage is still controversially discussed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to histologically evaluate the healing of gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) and CTG with or without EMD in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gingival recession defects (5 mm wide and 7 mm deep) were surgically created on the labial side of bilateral maxillary canines in 7 dogs. After 8 weeks of plaque accumulation and subsequent 2 weeks of chemical plaque control, the 14 chronic defects were randomized to receive either CAF with CTG (CAF/CTG) or CAF with CTG and EMD (CAF/CTG/EMD). The animals were sacrificed 10 weeks after reconstructive surgery for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Treatment with CAF/CTG/EMD demonstrated statistically significantly better results in terms of probing pocket depth reduction (P < 0.05) and clinical attachment level gain (P < 0.001). The length of the epithelium was statistically significantly shorter in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than in the CAF/CTG group (1.00 ± 0.75 mm vs. 2.38 ± 1.48 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). Cementum formation was statistically significantly greater in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than following treatment with the CAF/CTG group (3.20 ± 0.89 mm vs. 1.88 ± 1.58 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). The CAF/CTG/EMD group showed statistically significantly greater complete periodontal regeneration (i.e., new cementum, new periodontal ligament, and new bone) than treatment with CAF/CTG (0.54 ± 0.73 mm vs. 0.07 ± 0.27 mm, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present findings indicate that the additional use of EMD in conjunction with CAF + CTG favors periodontal regeneration in gingival recession defects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present findings support the use of EMD combined with CTG and CAF for promoting periodontal regeneration in isolated gingival recession defects.
OBJECTIVES: The potential additive effect of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) for recession coverage is still controversially discussed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to histologically evaluate the healing of gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) and CTG with or without EMD in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Gingival recession defects (5 mm wide and 7 mm deep) were surgically created on the labial side of bilateral maxillary canines in 7 dogs. After 8 weeks of plaque accumulation and subsequent 2 weeks of chemical plaque control, the 14 chronic defects were randomized to receive either CAF with CTG (CAF/CTG) or CAF with CTG and EMD (CAF/CTG/EMD). The animals were sacrificed 10 weeks after reconstructive surgery for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Treatment with CAF/CTG/EMD demonstrated statistically significantly better results in terms of probing pocket depth reduction (P < 0.05) and clinical attachment level gain (P < 0.001). The length of the epithelium was statistically significantly shorter in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than in the CAF/CTG group (1.00 ± 0.75 mm vs. 2.38 ± 1.48 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). Cementum formation was statistically significantly greater in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than following treatment with the CAF/CTG group (3.20 ± 0.89 mm vs. 1.88 ± 1.58 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). The CAF/CTG/EMD group showed statistically significantly greater complete periodontal regeneration (i.e., new cementum, new periodontal ligament, and new bone) than treatment with CAF/CTG (0.54 ± 0.73 mm vs. 0.07 ± 0.27 mm, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present findings indicate that the additional use of EMD in conjunction with CAF + CTG favors periodontal regeneration in gingival recession defects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present findings support the use of EMD combined with CTG and CAF for promoting periodontal regeneration in isolated gingival recession defects.
Authors: Péter Windisch; Anton Sculean; Filip Klein; Vilmos Tóth; István Gera; Elmar Reich; Peter Eickholz Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Alexandra Stähli; Jean-Claude Imber; Elena Raptis; Giovanni E Salvi; Sigrun Eick; Anton Sculean Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: A Stähli; H Y Duong; J C Imber; A Roccuzzo; G E Salvi; C Katsaros; C A Ramseier; A Sculean Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 3.606