Sibel Kayaalti-Yüksek1, Emre Yaprak2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey. sibelkayaalti@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Gingival unit graft (GUG) is defined as the modified form of free gingival graft. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of GUG with connective tissue graft (SCTG) with respect to clinical periodontal parameters and patient comfort scores in gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with bilateral recession type 1 (RT1) gingival recessions participated in this randomized and split-mouth study. Thirty-two defects received surgical treatment with SCTG or GUG. The recession defect coverage, periodontal measurements, and patient-reported outcomes (intra- and post-operative patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity) were evaluated at baseline and post-operative months 1, 3 and 6. RESULTS: The favorable results were obtained in both study groups in gingival recession depth (RD), gingival recession width (RW), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). The average percentages of the recession defect coverage (RC) for GUG and SCTG group treatments after 6 months were 68.2 ± 33% and 76.4 ± 30.2%, respectively (p > 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between groups at post-operative 6 months (p > 0.05) in terms of RD, RW, CAL, RC, patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity parameters, the increase in KTW was significantly higher in GUG group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that although both techniques were effective, GUG can be a convenient method for treatment of RT1 gingival recessions with inadequate KTW and (or) shallow vestibule depth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to the results of this study, GUG may be a preferred choice in localized gingival recessions with a lack of keratinized tissue. The trial registration number: NCT04637451.
OBJECTIVES: Gingival unit graft (GUG) is defined as the modified form of free gingival graft. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of GUG with connective tissue graft (SCTG) with respect to clinical periodontal parameters and patient comfort scores in gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with bilateral recession type 1 (RT1) gingival recessions participated in this randomized and split-mouth study. Thirty-two defects received surgical treatment with SCTG or GUG. The recession defect coverage, periodontal measurements, and patient-reported outcomes (intra- and post-operative patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity) were evaluated at baseline and post-operative months 1, 3 and 6. RESULTS: The favorable results were obtained in both study groups in gingival recession depth (RD), gingival recession width (RW), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). The average percentages of the recession defect coverage (RC) for GUG and SCTG group treatments after 6 months were 68.2 ± 33% and 76.4 ± 30.2%, respectively (p > 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between groups at post-operative 6 months (p > 0.05) in terms of RD, RW, CAL, RC, patient comfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and hypersensitivity parameters, the increase in KTW was significantly higher in GUG group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that although both techniques were effective, GUG can be a convenient method for treatment of RT1 gingival recessions with inadequate KTW and (or) shallow vestibule depth. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: According to the results of this study, GUG may be a preferred choice in localized gingival recessions with a lack of keratinized tissue. The trial registration number: NCT04637451.
Authors: Giovanni Zucchelli; Lorenzo Tavelli; Shayan Barootchi; Martina Stefanini; Giulio Rasperini; Cristina Valles; José Nart; Hom-Lay Wang Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Giovanni Zucchelli; Lorenzo Tavelli; Michael K McGuire; Giulio Rasperini; Stephen E Feinberg; Hom-Lay Wang; William V Giannobile Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2019-10-06 Impact factor: 6.993