Lata Goyal1, Kirti Chawla2. 1. Department of Dentistry (Periodontology), All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, India. 2. Department of Periodontics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To address the clinical question whether microsurgery hold an advantage in terms of clinical and patient oriented outcome over conventional macrosurgical procedures in the treatment of gingival recession. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Literature search on MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) via Ovid and Cochrane library was conducted in order to investigate clinical studies on efficacy of microsurgery in the treatment of localized or multiple gingival recession as compared to conventional macrosurgical procedures. Publications before May 2020 and grey literature was searched without any language restrictions. Primary outcome considered was change in recession depth and mean root coverage. Whereas, change in clinical attachment level, Change in keratinized tissue, patient oriented outcome like esthetics, pain and discomfort were the secondary outcome. Based on inclusion criteria ten studies were included in systematic review. Data was extracted and analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: All the included studies showed improvement in the mean percentage of root coverage or mean root coverage (primary outcome) when microsurgical approach was used. Predictability of complete root coverage is better with microsurgical instrumentation but results are not statistically significant. As far as patient centered outcome is concerned, there is no evidence for recommendation of microsurgery.
OBJECTIVE: To address the clinical question whether microsurgery hold an advantage in terms of clinical and patient oriented outcome over conventional macrosurgical procedures in the treatment of gingival recession. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Literature search on MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database) via Ovid and Cochrane library was conducted in order to investigate clinical studies on efficacy of microsurgery in the treatment of localized or multiple gingival recession as compared to conventional macrosurgical procedures. Publications before May 2020 and grey literature was searched without any language restrictions. Primary outcome considered was change in recession depth and mean root coverage. Whereas, change in clinical attachment level, Change in keratinized tissue, patient oriented outcome like esthetics, pain and discomfort were the secondary outcome. Based on inclusion criteria ten studies were included in systematic review. Data was extracted and analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: All the included studies showed improvement in the mean percentage of root coverage or mean root coverage (primary outcome) when microsurgical approach was used. Predictability of complete root coverage is better with microsurgical instrumentation but results are not statistically significant. As far as patient centered outcome is concerned, there is no evidence for recommendation of microsurgery.