Cargando…

Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare semilunar vestibular incision technique with pouch and tunnel technique in combination with A-PRF and L-PRF for treatment of Miller’s class I and II multiple gingival recessions. METHOD: This is a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, split mouth study whic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sameera, Shaik, Nagasri, Medandrao, Aravind Kumar, Pavuluri, Indeevar, Pantareddy, Raviraj, Kalapala, Musalaiah, S.V.V.S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6011223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29942101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.03.002
_version_ 1783333762804744192
author Sameera, Shaik
Nagasri, Medandrao
Aravind Kumar, Pavuluri
Indeevar, Pantareddy
Raviraj, Kalapala
Musalaiah, S.V.V.S.
author_facet Sameera, Shaik
Nagasri, Medandrao
Aravind Kumar, Pavuluri
Indeevar, Pantareddy
Raviraj, Kalapala
Musalaiah, S.V.V.S.
author_sort Sameera, Shaik
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this study is to compare semilunar vestibular incision technique with pouch and tunnel technique in combination with A-PRF and L-PRF for treatment of Miller’s class I and II multiple gingival recessions. METHOD: This is a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, split mouth study which consists of 16 systemically healthy patients with 96 sites and a mean age of 34.2 years, and divided randomly into 2 groups, Group A consists of semilunar vestibular incision technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF and Group B consists of Pouch and tunnel technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 3 months and 6 months which include plaque index, gingival index, recession depth, recession width, clinical attachment loss and width of keratinized tissue. RESULTS: All the clinical parameters showed significantly better levels for both the groups from baseline to 6 months. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed greater significance when compared to pouch and tunnel technique from baseline to 6 months post operatively. CONCLUSION: The combination of A-PRF and L-PRF with pouch and tunnel technique and semilunar vestibular technique showed better outcome 6 months post operatively. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed promising results than pouch and tunnel technique for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6011223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60112232018-06-25 Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF Sameera, Shaik Nagasri, Medandrao Aravind Kumar, Pavuluri Indeevar, Pantareddy Raviraj, Kalapala Musalaiah, S.V.V.S. Saudi Dent J Original Article AIM: The aim of this study is to compare semilunar vestibular incision technique with pouch and tunnel technique in combination with A-PRF and L-PRF for treatment of Miller’s class I and II multiple gingival recessions. METHOD: This is a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, split mouth study which consists of 16 systemically healthy patients with 96 sites and a mean age of 34.2 years, and divided randomly into 2 groups, Group A consists of semilunar vestibular incision technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF and Group B consists of Pouch and tunnel technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 3 months and 6 months which include plaque index, gingival index, recession depth, recession width, clinical attachment loss and width of keratinized tissue. RESULTS: All the clinical parameters showed significantly better levels for both the groups from baseline to 6 months. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed greater significance when compared to pouch and tunnel technique from baseline to 6 months post operatively. CONCLUSION: The combination of A-PRF and L-PRF with pouch and tunnel technique and semilunar vestibular technique showed better outcome 6 months post operatively. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed promising results than pouch and tunnel technique for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. Elsevier 2018-07 2018-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC6011223/ /pubmed/29942101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.03.002 Text en © 2018 King Saud University http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Sameera, Shaik
Nagasri, Medandrao
Aravind Kumar, Pavuluri
Indeevar, Pantareddy
Raviraj, Kalapala
Musalaiah, S.V.V.S.
Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title_full Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title_fullStr Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title_short Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF
title_sort comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of a-prf and l-prf
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6011223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29942101
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2018.03.002
work_keys_str_mv AT sameerashaik comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf
AT nagasrimedandrao comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf
AT aravindkumarpavuluri comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf
AT indeevarpantareddy comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf
AT ravirajkalapala comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf
AT musalaiahsvvs comparisonoftwosurgicaltechniquesinthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionssandwichedwithacombinationofaprfandlprf