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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garzon, Hernan S., Alfonso, Camilo, Vega, Francisco J., García, Andrea, Muñoz, Ana, Jaimes, Gustavo, Isaza, Katherine, Rivera, Katherine
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