Clinical comparison of coronary displaced flap and sub-epithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix protein derivative for gingival recession coverage. Clinical case presentation
Author(s) -
Ana Patricia Vargas Casillas,
Blanca Itzel Mendoza Espinosa,
Socorro Aída Borges-Yáñez
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
revista odontológica mexicana órgano oficial de la facultad de odontología unam
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1870-199X
DOI - 10.1016/j.rodmex.2015.10.018
Subject(s) - enamel matrix derivative , gingival recession , dentistry , medicine , enamel paint , orthodontics , regeneration (biology) , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
The present article described a clinical case where it was assessed whether aggregation of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to the procedure of coronary-advanced flap with sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (CAF + SCTG) would improve the amount of root coverage in Miller's class I and II gingival recessions when compared to the same isolated procedure in a patient suffering multiple gingival recessions, in a 6 month time-span. Twelve gingival recessions were included in the study: six treated with (CAF + SCTG + EMD) and six treated with (CAF + SCTG) in different quadrants. At beginning of procedure as well as six months later, the following clinical parameters were measured: gingival recession depth (RD), depth to probing (PD), clinical insertion level (CIL) and width of keratinized tissue (KT) in apex-coronary direction. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results established that after a six month procedure CAF + SCTG + EMD and CAF + SCTG produced significant root coverage, respective averages were 2.83 ± 1.16mm (p = 0.001) and 2.50 ± 0.83mm (p = .002). All gingival recessions treated with EMD experienced 100% root coverage, sites treated with CAF + SCTG + EMD exhibited coverage of only 65.3%. When comparing results at six months, better results were observed with CAF + SCTG + EMD with respect to clinical insertion level (p = .02) and root coverage (p = .06). Nevertheless, neither the difference of clinical level insertion nor the gain in root coverage resulted significant. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between PD and KT. Conclusion: The present clinical case did not show additional benefits when EMD were aggregated to the CAF + SCTG in the coverage of multiple Miller's class I and class II gingival recessions
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom