Cargando…
Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial
(1) Background: This study compared the clinical and esthetic results of the double lateral sliding bridge flap (DLSBF) and the laterally closed tunnel (LCT) techniques, with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), for the treatment of single Miller class II-III recessions in the mandibular...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9147998/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35629044 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102918 |
_version_ | 1784716944736256000 |
---|---|
author | Quispe-López, Norberto Sánchez-Santos, Juan Delgado-Gregori, Joaquín López-Malla Matute, Joaquín López-Valverde, Nansi Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro Flores-Fraile, Javier Gómez-Polo, Cristina Montero, Javier |
author_facet | Quispe-López, Norberto Sánchez-Santos, Juan Delgado-Gregori, Joaquín López-Malla Matute, Joaquín López-Valverde, Nansi Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro Flores-Fraile, Javier Gómez-Polo, Cristina Montero, Javier |
author_sort | Quispe-López, Norberto |
collection | PubMed |
description | (1) Background: This study compared the clinical and esthetic results of the double lateral sliding bridge flap (DLSBF) and the laterally closed tunnel (LCT) techniques, with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), for the treatment of single Miller class II-III recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth. (2) Methods: This pseudorandomized clinical trial evaluated 14 patients, 7 of whom were part of the DLSBF + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 58.7 ± 24.0 months, and 7 of whom were in the LCT + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 16.7 ± 3.3 months. Clinical and esthetic evaluations of the following parameters were performed and the results for the two groups were compared: gingival recession depth, probing depth, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness, percentage of root coverage and root coverage esthetic score. (3) Results: After the follow-up period, each technique provided evidence of a reduction in recession depth and clinical attachment level, as well as increased keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The analysis showed that gingival recession depth decreased less in the DLSBF group (4.3 ± 1.2 mm to 0.6 ± 1.1 mm) than it did in the LCT group (4.9 ± 1.1 mm to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm), but no significant difference was found between the two groups. Similarly, a greater reduction in the clinical attachment level parameter was observed in the LCT group, while a greater increase in gingival thickness was observed in the DLSBF group. The presence of scars was the only parameter for which statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two study groups were found. (4) Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it indicates that the LCT + SCTG technique may be considered an optimal technique in terms of reducing gingival recession depth, complete root coverage and esthetic results for the treatment of single gingival recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9147998 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91479982022-05-29 Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial Quispe-López, Norberto Sánchez-Santos, Juan Delgado-Gregori, Joaquín López-Malla Matute, Joaquín López-Valverde, Nansi Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro Flores-Fraile, Javier Gómez-Polo, Cristina Montero, Javier J Clin Med Article (1) Background: This study compared the clinical and esthetic results of the double lateral sliding bridge flap (DLSBF) and the laterally closed tunnel (LCT) techniques, with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), for the treatment of single Miller class II-III recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth. (2) Methods: This pseudorandomized clinical trial evaluated 14 patients, 7 of whom were part of the DLSBF + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 58.7 ± 24.0 months, and 7 of whom were in the LCT + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 16.7 ± 3.3 months. Clinical and esthetic evaluations of the following parameters were performed and the results for the two groups were compared: gingival recession depth, probing depth, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness, percentage of root coverage and root coverage esthetic score. (3) Results: After the follow-up period, each technique provided evidence of a reduction in recession depth and clinical attachment level, as well as increased keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The analysis showed that gingival recession depth decreased less in the DLSBF group (4.3 ± 1.2 mm to 0.6 ± 1.1 mm) than it did in the LCT group (4.9 ± 1.1 mm to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm), but no significant difference was found between the two groups. Similarly, a greater reduction in the clinical attachment level parameter was observed in the LCT group, while a greater increase in gingival thickness was observed in the DLSBF group. The presence of scars was the only parameter for which statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two study groups were found. (4) Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it indicates that the LCT + SCTG technique may be considered an optimal technique in terms of reducing gingival recession depth, complete root coverage and esthetic results for the treatment of single gingival recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth. MDPI 2022-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9147998/ /pubmed/35629044 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102918 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Quispe-López, Norberto Sánchez-Santos, Juan Delgado-Gregori, Joaquín López-Malla Matute, Joaquín López-Valverde, Nansi Zubizarreta-Macho, Álvaro Flores-Fraile, Javier Gómez-Polo, Cristina Montero, Javier Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title | Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title_full | Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title_fullStr | Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title_short | Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial |
title_sort | double lateral sliding bridge flap versus laterally closed tunnel for the treatment of single recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth: a pseudorandomized clinical trial |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9147998/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35629044 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11102918 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT quispelopeznorberto doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT sanchezsantosjuan doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT delgadogregorijoaquin doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT lopezmallamatutejoaquin doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT lopezvalverdenansi doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT zubizarretamachoalvaro doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT floresfrailejavier doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT gomezpolocristina doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial AT monterojavier doublelateralslidingbridgeflapversuslaterallyclosedtunnelforthetreatmentofsinglerecessionsinthemandibularanteriorteethapseudorandomizedclinicaltrial |