A novel soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography study in the evaluation of gingival thickness associated with subepithelial connective tissue graft versus acellular dermal matrix in the management of gingival recession: A clinical study.
Acellular dermal matrix allograft
soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography
subepithelial connective tissue graft
Journal
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
ISSN: 0972-124X
Titre abrégé: J Indian Soc Periodontol
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101499342
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
30
09
2019
revised:
31
03
2020
accepted:
14
04
2020
entrez:
4
11
2020
pubmed:
5
11
2020
medline:
5
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dental esthetic awareness among patients led the clinicians to introduce newer materials and predictable techniques that satisfy the patients' esthetic demands. To evaluate and compare the efficacy of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SECTG) and acellular dermal matrix (ACDM) allograft in the treatment of Millers Class I or Class II recession with the determination of gingival thickness using an impertinent method, soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography (ST-CBCT). A split-mouth study with a total of ten patients with bilateral Millers class I or class II recession is randomly assigned by a coin toss method as Group I (SECTG) and Group II (ACDM) along with coronally advanced flap. Clinical parameters including recession height (RH), recession width (RW), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and height of keratinized tissue (HKT) were evaluated at baseline, 90 Statistically significant reduction in RH and RW, gain in CAL, and increase in HKT and TKT in both Group I and Group II were seen in 90 The present study suggested that root coverage with both SECTG and ACDM is very predictable procedure and it is stable for 6 months. ST-CBCT is a newer dimension in periodontal imaging and will certainly aid clinicians in the execution of various treatment modalities with increased predictability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dental esthetic awareness among patients led the clinicians to introduce newer materials and predictable techniques that satisfy the patients' esthetic demands.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compare the efficacy of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SECTG) and acellular dermal matrix (ACDM) allograft in the treatment of Millers Class I or Class II recession with the determination of gingival thickness using an impertinent method, soft tissue cone-beam computed tomography (ST-CBCT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A split-mouth study with a total of ten patients with bilateral Millers class I or class II recession is randomly assigned by a coin toss method as Group I (SECTG) and Group II (ACDM) along with coronally advanced flap. Clinical parameters including recession height (RH), recession width (RW), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and height of keratinized tissue (HKT) were evaluated at baseline, 90
RESULTS
RESULTS
Statistically significant reduction in RH and RW, gain in CAL, and increase in HKT and TKT in both Group I and Group II were seen in 90
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The present study suggested that root coverage with both SECTG and ACDM is very predictable procedure and it is stable for 6 months. ST-CBCT is a newer dimension in periodontal imaging and will certainly aid clinicians in the execution of various treatment modalities with increased predictability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33144769
doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_508_19
pii: JISP-24-421
pmc: PMC7592622
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
421-427Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Indian Society of Periodontology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Periodontol. 2005 Nov;76(11):1814-22
pubmed: 16274299
J Periodontol. 1985 Dec;56(12):715-20
pubmed: 3866056
Transplantation. 1995 Jul 15;60(1):1-9
pubmed: 7542811
J Periodontol. 2001 Nov;72(11):1477-84
pubmed: 11759858
J Periodontal Res. 1975 Feb;10(1):1-11
pubmed: 124329
J Periodontol. 2004 Jan;75(1):44-56
pubmed: 15025216
J Periodontol. 2001 Nov;72(11):1470-6
pubmed: 11759857
J Clin Periodontol. 1974;1(4):185-96
pubmed: 4533490
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(6):366-73; discussion 374
pubmed: 19120781
J Periodontol. 1983 Sep;54(9):534-7
pubmed: 6355432
J Periodontol. 1976 Oct;47(10):574-9
pubmed: 1067400
J Periodontol. 2001 May;72(5):571-82
pubmed: 11394391
J Periodontol. 2004 May;75(5):734-43
pubmed: 15212356
Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1996 Mar;8(2):201-8
pubmed: 9028293
J Periodontol. 2006 Oct;77(10):1625-34
pubmed: 17032103
J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017 Dec 02;51(3 Suppl 1):S102-S121
pubmed: 29354314
J Periodontol. 2007 Dec;78(12):2348-55
pubmed: 18052708
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006 May 01;7(2):63-70
pubmed: 16685296
J Periodontol. 2010 Apr;81(4):569-74
pubmed: 20367099
J Periodontol. 1998 Nov;69(11):1305-11
pubmed: 9848542
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017 Jun;123(6):714-720
pubmed: 28411007
Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Jun 15;199(1-3):9-14
pubmed: 20236780
J Clin Periodontol. 1986 Aug;13(7):654-7
pubmed: 3531244
J Periodontol. 2002 Nov;73(11):1299-307
pubmed: 12479634
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 1998 Jun;9(2):153-65
pubmed: 9754709
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2014 May;18(3):352-6
pubmed: 25024550
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002 Apr;22(2):156-63
pubmed: 12019711
J Periodontol. 1999 Sep;70(9):1118-24
pubmed: 10505815
J Periodontol. 2005 May;76(5):713-22
pubmed: 15898931
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019 Jul-Aug;23(4):334-338
pubmed: 31367130
J Periodontol. 2005 Aug;76(8):1323-8
pubmed: 16101365
J Periodontol. 2001 Aug;72(8):998-1005
pubmed: 11525450