TY - JOUR
T1 - Connective tissue graft and tunnel or trapezoidal flap for the treatment of single maxillary gingival recessions
T2 - a randomized clinical trial
AU - Santamaria, Mauro Pedrine
AU - Neves, Felipe Lucas da Silva
AU - Silveira, Camila Augusto
AU - Mathias, Ingrid Fernandes
AU - Fernandes-Dias, Stephanie Botti
AU - Jardini, Maria Aparecida Neves
AU - Tatakis, Dimitris N.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PY - 2017/5
Y1 - 2017/5
N2 - Background: Although ample evidence supports connective tissue graft (CTG) use for root coverage, there is need for research on recipient site preparation approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of trapezoidal coronally advanced flap (CAF) and coronally advanced tunnel flap (TUN) when used in conjunction with CTG. Methods: Forty-two patients presenting 42 single maxillary, Miller Class I and II, gingival recession defects were randomly assigned to receive either CAF + CTG (N = 21) or TUN + CTG (N = 21). Clinical, patient-centred, and aesthetic outcomes were assessed. Results: Six months postoperatively, both groups resulted in significant reduction in recession depth and increases in keratinized tissue thickness and width. CAF + CTG and TUN + CTG mean root coverage was 87.2 ± 27.1% and 77.4 ± 20.4% respectively (p = 0.02). Complete root coverage was achieved in 71.4% and 28.6% of defects treated with CAF + CTG and TUN + CTG respectively (p = 0.01). At 7 days postoperatively, TUN + CTG patients reported significantly less pain experience (p = 0.04). Both approaches reduced dentine hypersensitivity by approximately 85% (p < 0.05). Patient-based aesthetic evaluation indicated significant improvement for both groups. Although patient- and professional-based aesthetic assessments revealed no differences between groups, tissue texture was significantly better for TUN + CTG (p = 0.02). Conclusions: For root coverage of single maxillary recession defects, CAF + CTG was more effective than TUN + CTG (ClinicalTrial.org-NCT02814279).
AB - Background: Although ample evidence supports connective tissue graft (CTG) use for root coverage, there is need for research on recipient site preparation approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of trapezoidal coronally advanced flap (CAF) and coronally advanced tunnel flap (TUN) when used in conjunction with CTG. Methods: Forty-two patients presenting 42 single maxillary, Miller Class I and II, gingival recession defects were randomly assigned to receive either CAF + CTG (N = 21) or TUN + CTG (N = 21). Clinical, patient-centred, and aesthetic outcomes were assessed. Results: Six months postoperatively, both groups resulted in significant reduction in recession depth and increases in keratinized tissue thickness and width. CAF + CTG and TUN + CTG mean root coverage was 87.2 ± 27.1% and 77.4 ± 20.4% respectively (p = 0.02). Complete root coverage was achieved in 71.4% and 28.6% of defects treated with CAF + CTG and TUN + CTG respectively (p = 0.01). At 7 days postoperatively, TUN + CTG patients reported significantly less pain experience (p = 0.04). Both approaches reduced dentine hypersensitivity by approximately 85% (p < 0.05). Patient-based aesthetic evaluation indicated significant improvement for both groups. Although patient- and professional-based aesthetic assessments revealed no differences between groups, tissue texture was significantly better for TUN + CTG (p = 0.02). Conclusions: For root coverage of single maxillary recession defects, CAF + CTG was more effective than TUN + CTG (ClinicalTrial.org-NCT02814279).
KW - dental aesthetics
KW - dentin sensitivity
KW - gingival recession
KW - maxilla
KW - pain measurement
KW - surgical flaps
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85017461304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85017461304&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jcpe.12714
DO - 10.1111/jcpe.12714
M3 - Article
C2 - 28231619
AN - SCOPUS:85017461304
SN - 0303-6979
VL - 44
SP - 540
EP - 547
JO - Journal of Clinical Periodontology
JF - Journal of Clinical Periodontology
IS - 5
ER -