+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Subpedicle connective tissue graft versus guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of human gingival recession defects



Subpedicle connective tissue graft versus guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of human gingival recession defects



Journal of Periodontology 69(11): 1271-1277



The purpose of the present clinical study was to evaluate the effect of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in comparison to subpedicle connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the treatment of gingival recession defects. A total of 12 patients, each contributing a pair of Miller's Class I or II buccal gingival recessions, was treated. According to a randomization list, one defect in each patient received a polyglycolide/lactide bioabsorbable membrane, while the paired defect received a SCTG. Treatment effect was evaluated 6 months postsurgery. Clinical recordings included full-mouth and defect-specific oral hygiene standards and gingival health, recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KT). Mean RD significantly decreased from 3.1 mm presurgery to 1.5 mm at 6 months postsurgery for the GTR group (48% root coverage), and from 3.0 mm to 0.5 mm for the SCTG group (81% root coverage). RD reduction and root coverage were significantly greater in SCTG group compared to GTR group. Mean CAL gain amounted to 1.7 mm for the GTR group, and 2.3 mm in the SCTG group. No significant differences in PD changes were observed within and between groups. KT increased significantly from presurgery for both treatment groups, however gingival augmentation was significantly greater in the SCTG group compared to GTR group. Results indicate that: 1) treatment of human gingival recession defects by means of both GTR and SCTG procedures results in clinically and statistically significant improvement of the soft tissue conditions of the defect; and 2) treatment outcome was significantly better following SCTG compared to GTR in terms of recession depth reduction, root coverage, and keratinized tissue increase.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 011421115

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 9848537

DOI: 10.1902/jop.1998.69.11.1271


Related references

Gingival recession treatment: guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane versus connective tissue graft. Journal of Periodontology 71(2): 299-307, 2000

Treatment of gingival recessions by combined periodontal regenerative technique, guided tissue regeneration, and subpedicle connective tissue graft. A comparative clinical study. Journal of Periodontology 73(1): 53-62, 2002

Comparative clinical study of a bioabsorbable membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of human gingival recession. Journal of Periodontology 70(2): 123-130, 1999

Treatment of localised gingival recession with subpedicle connective tissue graft and free gingival auto graft--a comparative clinical evaluation. Journal of the Indian Dental Association 61(12): 294-297, 1990

Adverse effects associated with a bioabsorbable guided tissue regeneration device in the treatment of human gingival recession defects. A clinicopathologic case report. Journal of Periodontology 70(5): 542-547, 1999

Treatment of gingival recession: comparative study between subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration. Journal of Periodontology 71(9): 1441-1447, 2000

Comparative evaluation of a bioabsorbable collagen membrane and connective tissue graft in the treatment of localized gingival recession: A clinical study. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology 15(4): 353-358, 2012

Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller's class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 6(3): E218-E224, 2014

A comparative study of root coverage obtained with guided tissue regeneration utilizing a bioabsorbable membrane versus the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft. Journal of Periodontology 68(8): 779-790, 1997

A comparison of 2 root coverage techniques: guided tissue regeneration with a bioabsorbable matrix style membrane versus a connective tissue graft combined with a coronally positioned pedicle graft without vertical incisions. results of a series of consecutive cases. Journal of Periodontology 69(12): 1426-1434, 1999

Controlled clinical evaluation of the subpedicle connective tissue graft for the coverage of gingival recession. Journal of Periodontology 65(12): 1107-1112, 1994

A 3-year longitudinal evaluation of subpedicle free connective tissue graft for gingival recession coverage. Journal of Periodontology 73(12): 1412-1418, 2003

Comparative clinical study of guided tissue regeneration with a bioabsorbable bilayer collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft. Journal of Periodontology 72(9): 1258-1264, 2001

Guided tissue regeneration using a bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of human buccal recession. A re-entry study. Journal of Periodontology 68(10): 982-989, 1997

A clinical/statistical comparison between the subpedicle connective tissue graft method and the guided tissue regeneration technique in root coverage. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 16(6): 538-545, 1996