Cargando…

Evaluation of periosteum eversion and coronally advanced flap techniques in the treatment of isolated Miller's Class I/II gingival recession: A comparative clinical study

AIM: The present investigation aimed to evaluate root coverage (RC) with periosteum eversion technique (PET) using periosteum as a graft and coronally advanced flap (CAF) with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane as a graft in the treatment of isolated Miller's class I and II gingival recession...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Debnath, Koel, Chatterjee, Anirban
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5939022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29769769
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_5_18
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: The present investigation aimed to evaluate root coverage (RC) with periosteum eversion technique (PET) using periosteum as a graft and coronally advanced flap (CAF) with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane as a graft in the treatment of isolated Miller's class I and II gingival recession defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty sites in 15 participants with Miller's Class I or II gingival recession were randomly treated either with PET using periosteum as graft and CAF + PRF as graft. In a split mouth design, the parameters such as recession depth, recession width at cementoenamel junction, probing depth, periodontal attachment level (PAL), and keratinized gingival width were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months postoperative follow-up with William's graduated probe and Vernier caliper. RESULTS: Both the treatment modalities yielded statistically nonsignificant desirable treatment outcomes at both postoperative levels in terms of all the parameters The mean RC with probe method and Vernier method in CAF + PRF was 75.01% and 86.86%, respectively, and PET showed a mean RC of 61.112% and 83.971%, respectively, at 6-month interval period which showed a nonstatistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: Both the treatment modalities, i.e., CAF + PRF and PET are essentially and equally effective in the treatment of Miller's Class I or II gingival recession defects.