| Literature DB >> 33642737 |
Unnati Pitale1, Pritish Chandra Pal1, Gauri Thakare2, Manish Verma3, Shikha Dhakad4, Rohit Pandey1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Reconstruction of interdental papillae (IDP) is among the most difficult periodontal therapy. Papillary recession is multifactorial, and several surgical, nonsurgical, and minimally invasive techniques have been suggested. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical application of injectable hyaluronic acid (HA) gel for the reconstruction of IDP in Nordland and Tarnow's Class I and II papillary recession cases.Entities:
Keywords: Hyaluronic acid filler; image analysis method; interdental papilla; minimally invasive technique; reconstruction of papilla; regeneration
Year: 2021 PMID: 33642737 PMCID: PMC7904010 DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_19_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol ISSN: 0972-124X
Figure 1Preoperative view of papillary recession between 11 and 21
Figure 3Preoperative measurement of interproximal width (interproximal width)
Figure 4Preoperative photographic measurement of black triangle height and Black triangle width
Figure 5Injection of hyaluronic acid filler was given
Figure 6Massage the area with adequate pressure
Figure 7Postoperative measurement of CP-GM at 3 month
Figure 9Postoperative measurement of black triangle height and black triangle width at 3 month
Figure 10Postoperative measurement of CP-GM at 6 month
Figure 12Postoperative measurement of black triangle height and black triangle width at 6 month
Figure 13Postoperative view of papillary regeneration between 11 and 21 at 3 months
Figure 14Six months postoperative view of showing persistent result of papillary regeneration between 11 and 21
Mean, standard deviation, F and P values of all the parameters, measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months intervals
| Parameters | Time interval | Mean | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP-GM | Baseline | 1.7200 | 1.17331 | 10.355 | 0.01* |
| 3 months | 0.5600 | 0.86987 | |||
| 6 months | 0.6400 | 0.95219 | |||
| BTH | Baseline | 1.6952 | 1.25837 | 9.003 | 0.01* |
| 3 months | 0.5876 | 0.90469 | |||
| 6 months | 0.6352 | 0.92979 | |||
| IPW | Baseline | 1.2800 | 0.54160 | 19.159 | 0.01* |
| 3 months | 0.4000 | 0.57735 | |||
| 6 months | 0.4400 | 0.58310 | |||
| BTW | Baseline | 1.2408 | 0.69809 | 14.558 | 0.01* |
| 3 months | 0.3860 | 0.58798 | |||
| 6 months | 0.4292 | 0.60129 |
*Statistically significant value, P≤0.05: Statistically significant, P<0.01: Statistically highly significant, P≥0.05: Statistically nonsignificant. P – Probability value; F – F statistics value; SD – Standard deviation; CP-GM – Contact point to gingival margin distances; IPW – Interproximal width; BTH – Black triangle height; BTW – Black triangle width
Post-hoc Bonferroni test for comparison of contact point to gingival margin distances, black triangle height, interproximal width, black triangle width
| Parameters | Time intervals | Mean difference | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|
| CP-GM | Baseline | ||
| 3 months | 1.16000 | 0.01* | |
| 6 months | 1.08000 | 0.01* | |
| 3 months | |||
| 6 months | −0.08000 | 0.957 | |
| BTH | Baseline | ||
| 3 months | 1.10760 | 0.01* | |
| 6 months | 1.06000 | 0.02* | |
| 3 months | |||
| 6 months | −0.04760 | 0.986 | |
| IPW | Baseline | ||
| 3 months | 0.88000 | 0.00* | |
| 6 months | 0.84000 | 0.00* | |
| 3 months | |||
| 6 months | −0.04000 | 0.966 | |
| BTW | Baseline | ||
| 3 months | 0.85480 | 0.01* | |
| 6 months | 0.81160 | 0.01* | |
| 3 months | |||
| 6 months | −0.04320 | 0.968 |
*Statistically significant values, P≤0.05: Statistically significant, P<0.01: Highly statistically significant, P≥0.05: Statistically nonsignificant. CP-GM – Contact point to gingival margin distances; IPW – Interproximal width; BTH – Black triangle height; BTW – Black triangle width; Sig – Significance value; P – Probability value