Cargando…

Evaluating the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Matrix versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue Grafts in Dental Root Coverage: A Comparative Study Using Modified Ruben’s Technique

BACKGROUND: Dental root coverage, crucial in managing gingival recessions, traditionally utilizes subepithelial connective tissue grafts. However, this approach has limitations such as donor site morbidity and graft availability. Recent studies have introduced platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as an altern...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Louis, Justina P., Crena, Jasmine M., Prakash, P.S.G., Subramanian, Sangeetha, Victor, Dhayanand John, Balaji, Thodur Madapusi, Zidane, Bassam, Al-Ahmari, Manea Musa Musleh, Albar, Nassreen H., Halawani, Ibrahim F., Alzahrani, Khalid J., Halawani, Abdullah F., Patil, Shankargouda
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10559832/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37786246
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.941473
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Dental root coverage, crucial in managing gingival recessions, traditionally utilizes subepithelial connective tissue grafts. However, this approach has limitations such as donor site morbidity and graft availability. Recent studies have introduced platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as an alternative, leveraging its regenerative potential and growth factors. Despite the promise, comparative assessments between PRF and conventional grafts remain limited. This research probes whether PRF, when used beneath a modified Ruben’s mixed flap, could provide comparable or superior dental root coverage than a subepithelial connective tissue graft. MATERIAL/METHODS: We enrolled 30 patients exhibiting Miller’s class I and II recession in this comparative case series. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a connective tissue graft (15 patients) or a PRF matrix (15 patients), both covered by a modified Ruben’s mixed flap. RESULTS: Clinical parameters, including full mouth plaque scores, bleeding scores, probing sulcus depth, clinical attachment level, gingival position assessment, width, and thickness of attached gingiva, were assessed in both the control and test groups at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery. Significant differences were observed at all intervals. At the 12-month mark, the control group (connective tissue graft) achieved 91% complete root coverage, while the test group (PRF matrix) achieved 86%. However, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The study outcomes suggest comparable gains in root coverage and attached gingiva between the connective tissue graft and PRF matrix groups. Thus, the results support our hypothesis that a subepithelial PRF matrix can serve as a viable alternative to a subepithelial connective tissue graft for treating dental root coverage.