scholarly journals Esthetic Root Coverage with Double Papillary Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft: A Case Report

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Ramesh Babu Mutthineni ◽  
Ram Babu Dudala ◽  
Arpita Ramisetty
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Tissue Regeneration ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Hard Tissue ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Grafts

Patients today have become excessively concerned about esthetics. These esthetic concerns of patients have become an integral part of periodontal practice. Gingival recession is an esthetic problem that can be successfully treated by means of several mucogingival surgical approaches, any of which can be used, provided that the biologic conditions for accomplishing root coverage are satisfied with no loss of soft and hard tissue height interdentally. There are currently different techniques for root coverage which include pedicle grafts, free gingival grafts, connective tissue grafts, and guided tissue regeneration (GTR). This paper reports a case in which a new double papillary connective tissue graft technique has been used in the treatment of gingival recession.

The Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft: Part 1. Patient Selection and Surgical Techniques

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence G. Breault ◽  
Lemuel L. Covington ◽  
Barry G. Bishop ◽  
Constance L. Sedon
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Grafts ◽  
Treatment Alternatives

Abstract Periodontal mucogingival techniques continually evolve. This provides the patient more treatment alternatives for common problems such as gingival recession. General practitioners should be familiar with these techniques in order to identify patients who might benefit from them. Currently, subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) remain the most reliable techniques used to cover denuded root surfaces. This paper reviews patient selection and the numerous surgical approaches for subepithelial connective tissue grafting. Citation Sedon CL, Breault LG, Covington LL, Bishop BG. The Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft: Part I. Patient Selection and Surgical Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2005 February;(6)1:146-162.

scholarly journals ROOT COVERAGE USING THE SUBEPITHELIAL CONNECTIVE TISSUE GRAFT OR THE ACELLULAR DERMAL MATRIX FOR THE TREATMENT OF GINGIVAL RECESSION: A CLINICAL STUDY

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Shula Zuleika Sumana ◽  
Sri Lelyati C Masulili ◽  
Robert Lessang
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Operative Data ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Acellular Dermal

Objective: This study aims to evaluate periodontal clinical conditions after treatment for gingival recession (GR) using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM).Methods: Ten patients with Miller’s Class I and II recessions that had been treated with SCTG or ADM at the Periodontics Outpatient Department at Universitas Indonesia were selected for this study. The pre-operative data for GR, clinical attachment levels (CAL), and attached gingiva (AG) were retrieved from the patients’ medical records. The patients were recalled and the post-operative data were recorded.Results: The application of SCTG and ADM yields significant changes to GR, CAL, and AG levels. A comparison of two groups at the post-operative assessment stage showed no statistically significant differences, in terms of GR, CAL, and AG.Conclusion: SCTG and ADM yield similar outcomes in the treatment of GR. As such, ADM may be suggested as an alternative to SCTG for root coverage.

scholarly journals Vestibular incisional subperiosteal tunnel access versus coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft for root coverage of Miller’s class I and II gingival recession: A randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Saeed Sadat Mansouri ◽  
Omid Moghaddas ◽  
Narjes Torabi ◽  
Katayoun Ghafari
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Coronally Advanced Flap ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
And Control

Background and aims. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of vestibular incisional subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) with subepithelial connective tissue graft versus a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession defects. Materials and methods. This randomized clinical trial was performed on 24 recession defects that were bilaterally Miller’s class I or II in the maxillary canine and premolar area. One quadrant in each patient was selected randomly to receive VISTA (test group) or CAF (control group) with connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters measured at baseline and at 3- and 6- month postoperative intervals included recession width (RW), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing depth (PD). Results. Healing was uneventful in both the test and control groups. At the 6-month follow-up, there was a significant decrease in RD, RW and CAL and an increase in KTW in both the test and control groups. The PD remained unchanged. At 3 and 6 months, no statistically significant differences were found between VISTA and CAF for root coverage and clinical attachment gain. Mean root coverage (MRC) was 70.69% and 67.22% in the test and control group, respectively. VISTA demonstrated higher frequency of complete root coverage (CRC) compared to CAF: 50% vs. 33% (P<0.05). The mean KTW was 2.4±0.7 mm at the test and 2.7±0.8 mm at the control sites (P>0.05) Conclusion. VISTA, as a minimally invasive approach, can enhance root coverage, KTW and clinical attachment gain; therefore, it can be used as a substitute for CAF with connective tissue graft as a gold standard for root coverage.

Pseudoaneurysm of the Greater Palatine Vessel Following Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 483-485
Author(s):  
Joshua Segal ◽  
Monika Patel ◽  
Henry Woo ◽  
Rachel Pruitt
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Flap Necrosis ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Graft Harvest ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Grafts

Subepithelial gingival connective tissue grafts are a common surgical procedure performed in periodontal and implant surgery. This versatile procedure has many indications including tooth root coverage, thickening of gingiva, and improvement of the quality of the crestal gingiva. Several techniques have been described for graft harvest from the palate. Reported complications from these techniques include pain, inflammation, bleeding, flap necrosis, and infection in the donor site. We report a previously unpublished complication following subepithelial gingival connective tissue graft from the palate: pseudoaneurysm of the greater palatine vessel.

scholarly journals Free Gingival Autograft and Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Brief Review and Report of Three Cases

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-232
Author(s):  
Seema Yadav ◽  
Jaishree A Rijhwani ◽  
Vineet V Kini
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Recipient Site ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Free Gingival Graft ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Attached Gingiva ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft

ABSTRACT Gingival recession is the migration of the free gingival margin apical to the cementoenamel junction. There are various factors contributing toward gingival recession apart from periodontal disease that include faulty tooth brushing, tooth position or malaligned teeth, high muscle or frenal attachment, alveolar bone dehiscence, orthodontic forces, and iatrogenic factors leading to problems of esthetics, hypersensitivity, and root caries. Several periodontal plastic surgical techniques have been introduced in the previous literature aiming to correct marginal tissue recessions, the predictability of which depends upon careful evaluation of the defect type, presence of attached gingiva, keratinized tissue width, and presence of single or multiple gingival recessions. The use of free gingival graft (FGG) and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in root coverage is indicated for the treatment of single or multiple gingival recessions. Although both FGGs and SCTGs provide significant reduction in recession depth and clinical attachment gain for Miller's Class I and II gingival recession defects, SCTG seems to offer root coverage with a better color match between donor and recipient site tissue rendering better esthetics. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of FGG and SCTG in root coverage procedures, the following case reports describe the clinical results using FGG by Miller's technique, and using SCTGs by technique of Langer and Langer, and Zabalegui tunnel technique for the treatment of gingival recession. How to cite this article Rijhwani JA, Kini VV, Pereira R, Yadav S. Free Gingival Autograft and Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Brief Review and Report of Three Cases. J Contemp Dent 2016;6(3):225-232.

scholarly journals A split mouth clinical study to compare Subepithelial connective tissue graft and Guided tissue regeneration in the treatment of Miller’s class I and II gingival recession.

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Kamal Garg ◽  
D V G Naidu ◽  
Udayan Gupta ◽  
Yogesh Garg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Tissue Regeneration ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Guided Tissue Regeneration ◽  
Class I ◽  
Collagen Membrane ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft

ABSTRACT Background: Gingival recession (GR) can result in hypersensitivity, esthetic concern to the patient, and chances for root caries. The purpose of this randomized clinical study was to evaluate the effect of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure using a bioabsorbable collagen membrane in comparison to autogenous Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for root coverage in Miller’s class I and II gingival recession defects. Materials and methods: In this split mouth study, 10 patients with 20 contralateral Miller’s class I or II recession defects were randomly treated with coronally advanced flap using either Subepithelial connective tissue graft (control group)  or resorbable collagen membrane (experimental group). The clinical evaluations were done using plaque index, gingival index, height of gingival recession, probing sulcus depth and clinical attachment level at baseline, 3 and 6 months post- operatively. Results: Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics and student’s t test was used for comparisons. P value <0.01 was considered to be significant. Both the groups showed complete resolution of the defects at 6 months post operatively. Inter group comparison between both the groups at 6 months showed no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical parameters. Conclusion:  Predictable outcome were observed in both the groups and indicated that collagen based guided tissue regeneration membrane i.e. ProGide can be safely used.

scholarly journals Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Niloofar Jenabian ◽  
Mohadese Yazdanpanahbahabadi ◽  
Parya Haghpanah Aski ◽  
Ali Bijani
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Acellular Dermal Matrix ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Dermal Matrix ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Acellular Dermal

Background. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) for the treatment of gingival recession as a substitute for subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Methods. In this controlled clinical trial, 18 teeth were selected in nine subjects with bilateral gingival recession. One side was treated with SCTG and a coronally displaced flap as the control group, and the other side was treated with ADMA and a coronally displaced flap as the test group. Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level, vertical recession depth, recession width, gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and the root coverage percentage were measured before the surgery and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative intervals. The healing index, pain index, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. The data were analyzed with a general linear model (GLM) repeated measures and paired t-test. Results. All the parameters improved except for PPD; however, a comparison between the groups did not reveal statistically significant differences. Only root coverage percentage and pain index were significantly lower in the test group. The average percentage of root coverage in the control and test groups were 82.01±16.62% and 64.44±9.4%, respectively. Conclusion. Both methods resulted in improvements in the clinical results. However, the use of the ADMA led to less pain and root coverage in comparison with the SCTG method.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Connective Tissue Grafts Versus Free Gingival Grafts

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (SPL4) ◽  
pp. 474-478
Author(s):  
Keerthana Baskar ◽  
Nashra Kareem ◽  
Sreedevi Dharman
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
P Value ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Free Gingival Graft ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Grafts ◽  
Gingival Graft

Root coverage is one of the important aims of periodontal therapy. The aim of the study was to evaluate the connective-tissue grafts (CTG) and free gingival grafts (FGG) in root coverage procedures. A retrospective study of sample size 32 was conducted. These patients underwent a root coverage procedure done using grafts. The details on which graft was obtained from patient records were reviewed and analysed between June 2019 to March 2020. Excel tabulation was done, analysed and transferred to SPSS for statistical analysis. The p value was set at 0.05. In the study, it was found that CTG was used in 56.25% of the patients and FGG was used in 43.75% of the patients undergoing root coverage procedure.  It was found that Free gingival grafts (25%) were placed more commonly in females when compared to connective tissue grafts (18.75%). However, in males, connective tissue grafts (37.5%) were placed more commonly than free gingival grafts. (18.75%) The prevalence of connective tissue graft was more when compared to free gingival graft at 36-55 years of age. Connective tissue graft was done more commonly in the age group of 15-35 years. Prevalence of connective tissue grafts was more in males than in females. Within the limits of the study, it was found that connective tissue graft (CTG) procedures performed more than free gingival graft (FGG) procedures following the gold standard for root coverage in gingival recession treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document