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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |