scholarly journals Root coverage using subepithelial connective tissue graft with platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of gingival recession: A clinical study

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 530 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. V. V. Srinivas ◽  
N Rupa ◽  
KV Halini Kumari ◽  
S. S. V. Prasad ◽  
U Varalakshmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Gingival Recession ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft

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.

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 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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document