Premium
Root Coverage Using Acellular Dermal Matrix and Comparing a Coronally Positioned Tunnel to a Coronally Positioned Flap Approach
Author(s) -
Papageorgakopoulos Georgios,
Greenwell Henry,
Hill Margaret,
Vidal Ricardo,
Scheetz James P.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2008.070546
Subject(s) - medicine , significant difference , dentistry , orthodontics
Background: The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, masked clinical trial was to compare the percentage of root coverage obtained with a coronally positioned flap plus acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft to that of a tunnel technique plus ADM 4 months post‐surgically. Methods: Twenty‐four subjects with one site with ≥3 mm Miller Class I or II recession were treated and followed for 4 months. Twelve patients received a coronally positioned flap plus ADM and were considered the positive control group (CPF). The test group consisted of 12 subjects treated with a coronally positioned tunnel technique plus ADM (TUN). Subjects were randomly selected by a coin toss to receive the test or control treatment. Results: The mean facial recession defect at the initial examination for the TUN group was 3.1 ± 0.3 mm; this was reduced to 0.7 ± 0.9 mm at the 4‐month examination for a gain of 2.4 ± 1.0 mm or 78% defect coverage ( P <0.05). The mean facial recession defect at the initial examination for the CPF group was 3.4 ± 0.8 mm; it was reduced to 0.2 ± 0.3 mm at the 4‐month examination for a gain of 3.2 ± 0.9 mm or 95% defect coverage ( P <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups ( P >0.05). Conclusions: The coronally positioned flap plus ADM produced a defect coverage of 95%, whereas the tunnel technique plus ADM produced only 78% coverage. This difference was considered clinically significant but was not statistically significant.