Cargando…

Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Class I and Class II Gingival Recessions by Modified Microsurgical Tunnel Technique and Modified Coronally Advanced Flap Using Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Mono-center Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Complete and uneventful recession coverage should be the aim of gingival recession treatment. Systematic reviews have said that coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft (CTG) is the gold standard for gingival recession treatment. Minimally invasive procedures with optical mag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karmakar, Sayantan, Kamath, Deepa Sai Giridhar, Shetty, Neetha J, Natarajan, Srikanth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35281688
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_117_21
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Complete and uneventful recession coverage should be the aim of gingival recession treatment. Systematic reviews have said that coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft (CTG) is the gold standard for gingival recession treatment. Minimally invasive procedures with optical magnification allow minimal tissue manipulation and precise adaptation of wound edges helping in faster and uneventful healing, thus bringing about a satisfactory clinical and patient outcome. Thus, the following study compares the clinical- and patient-related outcomes of modified microsurgical tunnel technique (MMTT) and modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) using CTG in the coverage of multiple adjacent Miller’s class I and II gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Gingival recession patients were selected and were assigned randomly to either MMTT+CTG or MCAF+CTG. Clinical parameters were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months. Patient’s satisfaction level was assessed by measuring root coverage esthetic score, hypersensitivity, and morbidity. The statistical analysis was performed using commercially available software SPSS version 14. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean±standard deviation for each parameter. Intragroup comparison was done by using the paired T-test. Intergroup comparison was done using the independent Student’s T-test. The significance level was set at P = 0.05. RESULTS: MMTT+CTG showed a statistically significant greater clinical- and patient-related outcome. CONCLUSION: MMTT+CTG, being a closed procedure, preserves the blood supply, helps in faster healing, and does not compromise the esthetics. All these lead to decreased morbidity and increased patient satisfaction which makes MMTT a superior technique than the conventional procedure in gingival recession treatment.