Cargando…

Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD), in the treatment of gingival recession types 1 and 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Górski, Bartłomiej, Górska, Renata, Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Joanna, Kaczyński, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7666664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03312-6
_version_ 1783610171851800576
author Górski, Bartłomiej
Górska, Renata
Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Joanna
Kaczyński, Tomasz
author_facet Górski, Bartłomiej
Górska, Renata
Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Joanna
Kaczyński, Tomasz
author_sort Górski, Bartłomiej
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD), in the treatment of gingival recession types 1 and 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with 150 multiple gingival recessions (GR) were included in the study. On one side, MCAT was combined with SCTG and EMD (tests), whereas MCAT with SCTG was applied on the contralateral side (controls). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Visual analog scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes and the root coverage esthetic score (RES) for professional esthetic evaluation. RESULTS: MCAT+SCTG+EMD was not superior with regard to root coverage. At 6 months, average root coverage (ARC) was 87.4% for SCTG+EMD-treated and 90.9% for SCTG-treated defects (p = 0.4170). Complete root coverage (CRC) was observed in 86.7% (tests) and 85.3% (controls) of the cases (p = 0.9872). Significantly less pain was reported using VAS (p = 0.0342) post-operatively in the SCTG+EMD group. Professional assessment of esthetic outcomes using RES showed a significant difference (9.25 versus 8.71, p = 0.0103) in favor of the test group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were equally effective in treatment of multiple GR and led to similar improvements in clinical parameters. However, the application of EMD as an adjunct resulted in less post-operative pain and better professionally assessed esthetic outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients’ early morbidity and 6-month esthetic outcomes following GR coverage with MCAT might be influenced by means of EMD utilization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7666664
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76666642020-11-17 Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial Górski, Bartłomiej Górska, Renata Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Joanna Kaczyński, Tomasz Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD), in the treatment of gingival recession types 1 and 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with 150 multiple gingival recessions (GR) were included in the study. On one side, MCAT was combined with SCTG and EMD (tests), whereas MCAT with SCTG was applied on the contralateral side (controls). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Visual analog scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes and the root coverage esthetic score (RES) for professional esthetic evaluation. RESULTS: MCAT+SCTG+EMD was not superior with regard to root coverage. At 6 months, average root coverage (ARC) was 87.4% for SCTG+EMD-treated and 90.9% for SCTG-treated defects (p = 0.4170). Complete root coverage (CRC) was observed in 86.7% (tests) and 85.3% (controls) of the cases (p = 0.9872). Significantly less pain was reported using VAS (p = 0.0342) post-operatively in the SCTG+EMD group. Professional assessment of esthetic outcomes using RES showed a significant difference (9.25 versus 8.71, p = 0.0103) in favor of the test group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were equally effective in treatment of multiple GR and led to similar improvements in clinical parameters. However, the application of EMD as an adjunct resulted in less post-operative pain and better professionally assessed esthetic outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients’ early morbidity and 6-month esthetic outcomes following GR coverage with MCAT might be influenced by means of EMD utilization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-07 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7666664/ /pubmed/32382922 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03312-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Górski, Bartłomiej
Górska, Renata
Wysokińska-Miszczuk, Joanna
Kaczyński, Tomasz
Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title_full Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title_short Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
title_sort tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7666664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382922
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03312-6
work_keys_str_mv AT gorskibartłomiej tunneltechniquewithenamelmatrixderivativeinadditiontosubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftcomparedwithconnectivetissuegraftaloneforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT gorskarenata tunneltechniquewithenamelmatrixderivativeinadditiontosubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftcomparedwithconnectivetissuegraftaloneforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT wysokinskamiszczukjoanna tunneltechniquewithenamelmatrixderivativeinadditiontosubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftcomparedwithconnectivetissuegraftaloneforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kaczynskitomasz tunneltechniquewithenamelmatrixderivativeinadditiontosubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftcomparedwithconnectivetissuegraftaloneforthetreatmentofmultiplegingivalrecessionsarandomizedclinicaltrial