Cargando…

Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of lateral osteoperiosteal flap (OPF) and lateral pedicle flap (LPF) in the treatment of Miller's Class III gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two anterior maxillary and mandibular sites from 16 participants requiring mucogingiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chakravarthy, Yarabham, Chandra, Rampalli Viswa, Reddy, Aileni Amarender, Reddy, Gollapalle Prabhandh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_489_19
_version_ 1783601223579992064
author Chakravarthy, Yarabham
Chandra, Rampalli Viswa
Reddy, Aileni Amarender
Reddy, Gollapalle Prabhandh
author_facet Chakravarthy, Yarabham
Chandra, Rampalli Viswa
Reddy, Aileni Amarender
Reddy, Gollapalle Prabhandh
author_sort Chakravarthy, Yarabham
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of lateral osteoperiosteal flap (OPF) and lateral pedicle flap (LPF) in the treatment of Miller's Class III gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two anterior maxillary and mandibular sites from 16 participants requiring mucogingival surgery for Miller's Class III gingival recession were included in the study. Eleven sites each were assigned to two groups. OPF: sites treated with lateral OPF and LPF: sites treated with LPF. Recession depth (RD) and bone level (BL) were the primary outcome variables, and probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KTW) were the secondary variables. All the variables were recorded at baseline (on the day of surgery), 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: OPF and LPF resulted in similar reduction in RD at the end of the study period (P ≤ 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in RD between OPF and LPF at 6 months (P = 0.862). OPF-treated sites showed greater gain in BL at 3 months (P = 0.0004) and 6 months (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were seen between OPF and LPF in measures of PD, CAL, and KTW. CONCLUSION: Data from this 6-month trial seem to suggest that OPF can be used as an alternative procedure for treating Miller's class III recessions with adjacent edentulous sites or wide interproximal spaces. Long-term effects of OPF on the stability of root coverage outcomes are an exciting direction for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7592619
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75926192020-11-02 Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial Chakravarthy, Yarabham Chandra, Rampalli Viswa Reddy, Aileni Amarender Reddy, Gollapalle Prabhandh J Indian Soc Periodontol Original Article AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of lateral osteoperiosteal flap (OPF) and lateral pedicle flap (LPF) in the treatment of Miller's Class III gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two anterior maxillary and mandibular sites from 16 participants requiring mucogingival surgery for Miller's Class III gingival recession were included in the study. Eleven sites each were assigned to two groups. OPF: sites treated with lateral OPF and LPF: sites treated with LPF. Recession depth (RD) and bone level (BL) were the primary outcome variables, and probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KTW) were the secondary variables. All the variables were recorded at baseline (on the day of surgery), 3 months, and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: OPF and LPF resulted in similar reduction in RD at the end of the study period (P ≤ 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in RD between OPF and LPF at 6 months (P = 0.862). OPF-treated sites showed greater gain in BL at 3 months (P = 0.0004) and 6 months (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were seen between OPF and LPF in measures of PD, CAL, and KTW. CONCLUSION: Data from this 6-month trial seem to suggest that OPF can be used as an alternative procedure for treating Miller's class III recessions with adjacent edentulous sites or wide interproximal spaces. Long-term effects of OPF on the stability of root coverage outcomes are an exciting direction for future research. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020 2020-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7592619/ /pubmed/33144774 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_489_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Indian Society of Periodontology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Chakravarthy, Yarabham
Chandra, Rampalli Viswa
Reddy, Aileni Amarender
Reddy, Gollapalle Prabhandh
Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title_full Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title_fullStr Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title_full_unstemmed Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title_short Lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class III gingival recession: A single-center, open-label trial
title_sort lateral osteoperiosteal flap versus lateral pedicle flap in the treatment of class iii gingival recession: a single-center, open-label trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33144774
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_489_19
work_keys_str_mv AT chakravarthyyarabham lateralosteoperiostealflapversuslateralpedicleflapinthetreatmentofclassiiigingivalrecessionasinglecenteropenlabeltrial
AT chandrarampalliviswa lateralosteoperiostealflapversuslateralpedicleflapinthetreatmentofclassiiigingivalrecessionasinglecenteropenlabeltrial
AT reddyaileniamarender lateralosteoperiostealflapversuslateralpedicleflapinthetreatmentofclassiiigingivalrecessionasinglecenteropenlabeltrial
AT reddygollapalleprabhandh lateralosteoperiostealflapversuslateralpedicleflapinthetreatmentofclassiiigingivalrecessionasinglecenteropenlabeltrial