Cargando…
Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft
Gingival recession (GR) can cause aesthetic and functional problems. Using connective tissue graft (CTG) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) is considered the technique of choice for treating GR. Considering the morbidity resulting from taking CTG, different alternative biomaterials have been describe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8053044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33927763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6616688 |
_version_ | 1783680038809370624 |
---|---|
author | Garzon, Hernan S. Alfonso, Camilo Vega, Francisco J. García, Andrea Muñoz, Ana Jaimes, Gustavo Isaza, Katherine Rivera, Katherine |
author_facet | Garzon, Hernan S. Alfonso, Camilo Vega, Francisco J. García, Andrea Muñoz, Ana Jaimes, Gustavo Isaza, Katherine Rivera, Katherine |
author_sort | Garzon, Hernan S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Gingival recession (GR) can cause aesthetic and functional problems. Using connective tissue graft (CTG) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) is considered the technique of choice for treating GR. Considering the morbidity resulting from taking CTG, different alternative biomaterials have been described, including plasma-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane. Studies in lower teeth are few because of the complexity of the factors that can influence obtaining less predictable outcomes. Objective. To compare between CAF + PRF and CAF + CTG in the treatment of lower teeth Miller I gingival recession. Methodology. Split-mouth included 26 isolated GR (13 in each side of the mouth). The left side was treated with CAF + PRF and the right side with CAF + CTG. Clinical variables, probing depth (PD), GR, keratinized tissue (KT), vestibular soft tissue thickness (VSTT), and teeth sensitivity (TS), were assessed at the baseline. GR, KT, VSTT, extraoral inflammation (EI), and patient discomfort (PaD) were assessed at 45 days. Results. Statistically greater VSTT at 45 days was obtained using CAF + CTG (p < 0.05). Less EI and PaD were obtained using CAF + PRF (p < 0.05). No change was observed in GR, KT, and TS values in the intergroup or intragroup comparisons. Conclusion. Even with the limitations of this study, using PRF and CTG in lower teeth demonstrated an improvement in terms of root coverage, although it was without a total percentage of coverage. Regarding the VSTT, better results were obtained using the CTG + CAF, suggesting eventually long-term stable clinical results. We suggest a combined technique for future investigations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8053044 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80530442021-04-28 Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft Garzon, Hernan S. Alfonso, Camilo Vega, Francisco J. García, Andrea Muñoz, Ana Jaimes, Gustavo Isaza, Katherine Rivera, Katherine Int J Dent Research Article Gingival recession (GR) can cause aesthetic and functional problems. Using connective tissue graft (CTG) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) is considered the technique of choice for treating GR. Considering the morbidity resulting from taking CTG, different alternative biomaterials have been described, including plasma-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane. Studies in lower teeth are few because of the complexity of the factors that can influence obtaining less predictable outcomes. Objective. To compare between CAF + PRF and CAF + CTG in the treatment of lower teeth Miller I gingival recession. Methodology. Split-mouth included 26 isolated GR (13 in each side of the mouth). The left side was treated with CAF + PRF and the right side with CAF + CTG. Clinical variables, probing depth (PD), GR, keratinized tissue (KT), vestibular soft tissue thickness (VSTT), and teeth sensitivity (TS), were assessed at the baseline. GR, KT, VSTT, extraoral inflammation (EI), and patient discomfort (PaD) were assessed at 45 days. Results. Statistically greater VSTT at 45 days was obtained using CAF + CTG (p < 0.05). Less EI and PaD were obtained using CAF + PRF (p < 0.05). No change was observed in GR, KT, and TS values in the intergroup or intragroup comparisons. Conclusion. Even with the limitations of this study, using PRF and CTG in lower teeth demonstrated an improvement in terms of root coverage, although it was without a total percentage of coverage. Regarding the VSTT, better results were obtained using the CTG + CAF, suggesting eventually long-term stable clinical results. We suggest a combined technique for future investigations. Hindawi 2021-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8053044/ /pubmed/33927763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6616688 Text en Copyright © 2021 Hernan S. Garzon et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Garzon, Hernan S. Alfonso, Camilo Vega, Francisco J. García, Andrea Muñoz, Ana Jaimes, Gustavo Isaza, Katherine Rivera, Katherine Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title | Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title_full | Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title_fullStr | Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title_full_unstemmed | Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title_short | Treatment of Miller I Mandibular Gingival Recessions Using PRF vs. Connective Graft |
title_sort | treatment of miller i mandibular gingival recessions using prf vs. connective graft |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8053044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33927763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6616688 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT garzonhernans treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT alfonsocamilo treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT vegafranciscoj treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT garciaandrea treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT munozana treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT jaimesgustavo treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT isazakatherine treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft AT riverakatherine treatmentofmillerimandibulargingivalrecessionsusingprfvsconnectivegraft |