Comparison of two surgical procedures for use of the acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recession: A randomized controlled clinical study
Comparison of two surgical procedures for use of the acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recession: A randomized controlled clinical study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1902/jop.2007.060356
复制
发表时间：
2007-07-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Novaes, Arthur B., Jr.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Felipe, Maria Emilia M. C.;Andrade, Patricia F.;Novaes, Arthur B., Jr.
背景资料：这个随机，对照，临床调查的目的是比较两种手术技术的根覆盖与脱细胞真皮基质移植物，以评估技术提供更好的根覆盖，更好的美学效果，和术后不适少。方法：15例双侧米勒类I或II牙龈退缩被选中。15对衰退进行了治疗，并随机分配到测试组，对侧衰退被分配到控制组。对照组采用更宽的皮瓣和垂直松解切口进行治疗;试验组采用拟定的手术技术进行治疗，无垂直松解切口。评价的临床参数包括探诊深度、相对临床附着水平、牙龈退缩（GR）、角化组织宽度、角化组织厚度、美学结果和疼痛评价。结果：在基线时，两组的所有参数相似。在6个月时，GR的统计学显著降低有利于对照组。试验组和对照组的根系覆盖率分别为68.98%和84.81%。两组之间的美学结果是等同的，所有患者都能耐受这两种程序well.Conclusions：这两种技术提供了显着的根覆盖，良好的美学效果，和类似的术后不适水平。然而，对照技术在局部牙龈退缩的根面覆盖方面有统计学上显著更好的结果。
Background: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical investigation was to compare two surgical techniques for root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft to evaluate which technique provided better root coverage, a better esthetic result, and less postoperative discomfort.Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. Fifteen pairs of recessions were treated and assigned randomly to the test group, and the contralateral recessions were assigned to the control group. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical releasing incisions; the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without vertical releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated were probing depth, relative clinical attachment level, gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue, thickness of keratinized tissue, esthetic result, and pain evaluation. The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months.Results: At baseline, all parameters were similar for both groups. At 6 months, a statistically significant greater reduction in GR favored the control group. The percentage of root coverage was 68.98% and 84.81% for the test and control groups, respectively. The esthetic result was equivalent between the groups, and all patients tolerated both procedures well.Conclusions: Both techniques provided significant root coverage, good esthetic results, and similar levels of postoperative discomfort. However, the control technique had statistically significantly better results for root coverage of localized gingival recessions.