Cargando…

Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery

To assess the difference in smile esthetic impact of Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) with or without the adjunct of a collagen matrix (CMX) used as root coverage procedures. Subjects with esthetic demands showing multiple upper gingival recessions of at least 2 mm, without interproximal attachment los...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rotundo, Roberto, Genzano, Luigi, Nieri, Michele, Covani, Ugo, Peñarrocha-Oltra, David, Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Singapore 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32772215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00544-6
_version_ 1783633494915678208
author Rotundo, Roberto
Genzano, Luigi
Nieri, Michele
Covani, Ugo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_facet Rotundo, Roberto
Genzano, Luigi
Nieri, Michele
Covani, Ugo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
author_sort Rotundo, Roberto
collection PubMed
description To assess the difference in smile esthetic impact of Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) with or without the adjunct of a collagen matrix (CMX) used as root coverage procedures. Subjects with esthetic demands showing multiple upper gingival recessions of at least 2 mm, without interproximal attachment loss and cervical abrasion no more than 1 mm were recruited and randomized to CAF plus CMX or CAF alone. The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI) was adopted to quantify the quality of the smile recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment for each treatment group. In addition, between group difference in the SEI was calculated. 24 Patients were treated and analysed. At baseline, mean gingival recession depths were 2.3 ± 0.7 mm for Test group and 2.6 ± 1.0 mm for Control group. After 1 year, the residual recession depth was 0.3 ± 0.4 mm in the CAF + CMX group and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The SEI at baseline was 8.1 ± 1.0 and 7.9 ± 0.7 for Test and Control group, respectively. The between groups difference at 12 months in SEI was 0.4 (95% C.I. − 0.0 to 0.8, P = 0.0697). Twelve months after treatment, CAF + CMX provided a similar SEI compared to CAF alone and the adjunct of a collagen matrix did not show a different impact on the smile esthetic appearance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7790786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Singapore
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77907862021-01-11 Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery Rotundo, Roberto Genzano, Luigi Nieri, Michele Covani, Ugo Peñarrocha-Oltra, David Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel Odontology Original Article To assess the difference in smile esthetic impact of Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) with or without the adjunct of a collagen matrix (CMX) used as root coverage procedures. Subjects with esthetic demands showing multiple upper gingival recessions of at least 2 mm, without interproximal attachment loss and cervical abrasion no more than 1 mm were recruited and randomized to CAF plus CMX or CAF alone. The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI) was adopted to quantify the quality of the smile recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment for each treatment group. In addition, between group difference in the SEI was calculated. 24 Patients were treated and analysed. At baseline, mean gingival recession depths were 2.3 ± 0.7 mm for Test group and 2.6 ± 1.0 mm for Control group. After 1 year, the residual recession depth was 0.3 ± 0.4 mm in the CAF + CMX group and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The SEI at baseline was 8.1 ± 1.0 and 7.9 ± 0.7 for Test and Control group, respectively. The between groups difference at 12 months in SEI was 0.4 (95% C.I. − 0.0 to 0.8, P = 0.0697). Twelve months after treatment, CAF + CMX provided a similar SEI compared to CAF alone and the adjunct of a collagen matrix did not show a different impact on the smile esthetic appearance. Springer Singapore 2020-08-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7790786/ /pubmed/32772215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00544-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis 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
Rotundo, Roberto
Genzano, Luigi
Nieri, Michele
Covani, Ugo
Peñarrocha-Oltra, David
Peñarrocha-Diago, Miguel
Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title_full Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title_fullStr Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title_full_unstemmed Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title_short Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
title_sort smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7790786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32772215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00544-6
work_keys_str_mv AT rotundoroberto smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery
AT genzanoluigi smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery
AT nierimichele smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery
AT covaniugo smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery
AT penarrochaoltradavid smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery
AT penarrochadiagomiguel smileestheticevaluationofmucogingivalreconstructivesurgery