Cargando…

Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)

Objectives: The present study aims to clinically compare and evaluate subepithelial connective tissue graft and the GTR based root coverage in treatment of Miller’s Class I gingival recession. Study Design: 30 patients with at least one pair of Miller’s Class I gingival recession were treated either...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trivedi, Sakshee-R., Bhavsar, Neeta-V., Dulani, Kirti, Trivedi, Rahul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25136420
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.51302
_version_ 1782330923205787648
author Trivedi, Sakshee-R.
Bhavsar, Neeta-V.
Dulani, Kirti
Trivedi, Rahul
author_facet Trivedi, Sakshee-R.
Bhavsar, Neeta-V.
Dulani, Kirti
Trivedi, Rahul
author_sort Trivedi, Sakshee-R.
collection PubMed
description Objectives: The present study aims to clinically compare and evaluate subepithelial connective tissue graft and the GTR based root coverage in treatment of Miller’s Class I gingival recession. Study Design: 30 patients with at least one pair of Miller’s Class I gingival recession were treated either with Subepithelial connective tissue graft (Group A) or Guided tissue regeneration (Group B). Clinical parameters monitored included recession RD, width of keratinized gingiva (KG), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), attached gingiva (AG), residual probing depth (RPD) and % of Root coverage(%RC). Measurements were taken at baseline, three months and six months. A standard surgical procedure was used for both Group A and Group B. Data were recorded and statistical analysis was done for both intergroup and intragroup. Results: At end of six months % RC obtained were 84.47% (Group A) and 81.67% (Group B). Both treatments resulted in statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters. When compared, no statistically significant difference was found between both groups except in RPD, where it was significantly greater in Group A. Conclusions: GTR technique has advantages over subepithelial connective tissue graft for shallow Miller’s Class I defects and this procedure can be used to avoid patient discomfort and reduce treatment time. Key words:Collagen membrane, comparative split mouth study, gingival recession, subepithelial connective tissue graft, guided tissue regeneration (GTR).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4134848
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41348482014-08-18 Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study) Trivedi, Sakshee-R. Bhavsar, Neeta-V. Dulani, Kirti Trivedi, Rahul J Clin Exp Dent Research Objectives: The present study aims to clinically compare and evaluate subepithelial connective tissue graft and the GTR based root coverage in treatment of Miller’s Class I gingival recession. Study Design: 30 patients with at least one pair of Miller’s Class I gingival recession were treated either with Subepithelial connective tissue graft (Group A) or Guided tissue regeneration (Group B). Clinical parameters monitored included recession RD, width of keratinized gingiva (KG), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), attached gingiva (AG), residual probing depth (RPD) and % of Root coverage(%RC). Measurements were taken at baseline, three months and six months. A standard surgical procedure was used for both Group A and Group B. Data were recorded and statistical analysis was done for both intergroup and intragroup. Results: At end of six months % RC obtained were 84.47% (Group A) and 81.67% (Group B). Both treatments resulted in statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters. When compared, no statistically significant difference was found between both groups except in RPD, where it was significantly greater in Group A. Conclusions: GTR technique has advantages over subepithelial connective tissue graft for shallow Miller’s Class I defects and this procedure can be used to avoid patient discomfort and reduce treatment time. Key words:Collagen membrane, comparative split mouth study, gingival recession, subepithelial connective tissue graft, guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Medicina Oral S.L. 2014-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4134848/ /pubmed/25136420 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.51302 Text en Copyright: © 2014 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Trivedi, Sakshee-R.
Bhavsar, Neeta-V.
Dulani, Kirti
Trivedi, Rahul
Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title_full Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title_fullStr Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title_full_unstemmed Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title_short Clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
title_sort clinical evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration for treatment of miller’s class 1 gingival recession (comparative, split mouth, six months study)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134848/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25136420
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.51302
work_keys_str_mv AT trivedisaksheer clinicalevaluationofsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftandguidedtissueregenerationfortreatmentofmillersclass1gingivalrecessioncomparativesplitmouthsixmonthsstudy
AT bhavsarneetav clinicalevaluationofsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftandguidedtissueregenerationfortreatmentofmillersclass1gingivalrecessioncomparativesplitmouthsixmonthsstudy
AT dulanikirti clinicalevaluationofsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftandguidedtissueregenerationfortreatmentofmillersclass1gingivalrecessioncomparativesplitmouthsixmonthsstudy
AT trivedirahul clinicalevaluationofsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftandguidedtissueregenerationfortreatmentofmillersclass1gingivalrecessioncomparativesplitmouthsixmonthsstudy