Cargando…
Comparative evaluation of coronally advanced flap with and without Biomesh(®) membrane for the treatment of localized gingival recession defects – a clinical study
Numerous surgical procedures are used to correct gingival recession, like free gingival graft, pedicle graft, and connective tissue graft. Our study aimed to compare and clinically evaluate root coverage using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with and without Biomesh(®) membrane to treat recession ty...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Carol Davila University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9262274/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35815079 http://dx.doi.org/10.25122/jml-2021-0109 |
Sumario: | Numerous surgical procedures are used to correct gingival recession, like free gingival graft, pedicle graft, and connective tissue graft. Our study aimed to compare and clinically evaluate root coverage using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with and without Biomesh(®) membrane to treat recession type 1 (RT(1)) and type 2 (RT(2)) defects. A total of 20 systemically stable patients, both males and females between the ages of 20 and 40, with bilateral recession defects in maxillary canines and premolars, were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: the control group: coronally advanced flap only and the test group: coronally advanced flap with Biomesh(®) membrane. All clinical parameters showed significant reductions from baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-surgery. Gingival recession significantly reduced both in test and control groups with no intergroup difference. The exposed root was covered by 70% in the test group and 78% in the control group. Clinical attachment level, the width of keratinized tissue, recession height, and recession width was significantly increased in the case of coronally advanced flap alone with significant intragroup comparison. The results for both treatment techniques for recession coverage were compared. CAF displayed superior results than CAF along with Biomesh(®) membrane in terms of clinical attachment level, root coverage percentage, and attached gingiva width. |
---|