Cargando…

Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

AIMS: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to clinically assess soft tissue augmentation and compare patients’ morbidity and root coverage outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) versus de-epithelialized free gingival graft...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mashaly, Mohamed, Ghallab, Noha A., Elbattawy, Weam, Elarab, Azza Ezz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213850
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_763_20
_version_ 1784802333330243584
author Mashaly, Mohamed
Ghallab, Noha A.
Elbattawy, Weam
Elarab, Azza Ezz
author_facet Mashaly, Mohamed
Ghallab, Noha A.
Elbattawy, Weam
Elarab, Azza Ezz
author_sort Mashaly, Mohamed
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to clinically assess soft tissue augmentation and compare patients’ morbidity and root coverage outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) versus de-epithelialized free gingival graft (DFGG) in the management of Miller Class I and II gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with Miller's Class I or II gingival recession (GR) defects were randomly assigned into two equal parallel groups treated with either CAF + SCTG, harvested using single-line incision technique (control), or CAF + DFGG (test). Gingival thickness (GT), recession depth, recession width, percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, pocket depth, and clinical attachment level were measured at baseline and 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively, including pain, stress, bleeding, and inability to chew. Patients’ overall satisfaction and root coverage esthetic scores were recorded at 6 months. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in all clinical outcomes after 3 and 6 months compared to baseline. DFGG showed a statistically significant increase in GT after 6 months. No statistically significant difference was detected in other clinical outcomes between both groups at different time intervals. Both treatments achieved 92.9% complete root coverage. Patients treated with CAF + DFGG reported significantly higher stress and inability to chew scores after 2 weeks than those treated with SCTG. There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: CAF + SCTG and CAF + DFGG were both effective and can be applied safely in treating Miller Class I and II GRs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9533386
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95333862022-10-06 Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Mashaly, Mohamed Ghallab, Noha A. Elbattawy, Weam Elarab, Azza Ezz Contemp Clin Dent Original Article AIMS: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to clinically assess soft tissue augmentation and compare patients’ morbidity and root coverage outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) versus de-epithelialized free gingival graft (DFGG) in the management of Miller Class I and II gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with Miller's Class I or II gingival recession (GR) defects were randomly assigned into two equal parallel groups treated with either CAF + SCTG, harvested using single-line incision technique (control), or CAF + DFGG (test). Gingival thickness (GT), recession depth, recession width, percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, pocket depth, and clinical attachment level were measured at baseline and 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively, including pain, stress, bleeding, and inability to chew. Patients’ overall satisfaction and root coverage esthetic scores were recorded at 6 months. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in all clinical outcomes after 3 and 6 months compared to baseline. DFGG showed a statistically significant increase in GT after 6 months. No statistically significant difference was detected in other clinical outcomes between both groups at different time intervals. Both treatments achieved 92.9% complete root coverage. Patients treated with CAF + DFGG reported significantly higher stress and inability to chew scores after 2 weeks than those treated with SCTG. There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: CAF + SCTG and CAF + DFGG were both effective and can be applied safely in treating Miller Class I and II GRs. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2022 2022-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9533386/ /pubmed/36213850 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_763_20 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Contemporary Clinical Dentistry https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mashaly, Mohamed
Ghallab, Noha A.
Elbattawy, Weam
Elarab, Azza Ezz
Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_short Soft Tissue Augmentation Using De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Compared to Single-line Incision Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Miller Class I and II Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_sort soft tissue augmentation using de-epithelialized free gingival graft compared to single-line incision subepithelial connective tissue graft in the management of miller class i and ii gingival recession: a randomized controlled clinical trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533386/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36213850
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_763_20
work_keys_str_mv AT mashalymohamed softtissueaugmentationusingdeepithelializedfreegingivalgraftcomparedtosinglelineincisionsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftinthemanagementofmillerclassiandiigingivalrecessionarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT ghallabnohaa softtissueaugmentationusingdeepithelializedfreegingivalgraftcomparedtosinglelineincisionsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftinthemanagementofmillerclassiandiigingivalrecessionarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT elbattawyweam softtissueaugmentationusingdeepithelializedfreegingivalgraftcomparedtosinglelineincisionsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftinthemanagementofmillerclassiandiigingivalrecessionarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT elarabazzaezz softtissueaugmentationusingdeepithelializedfreegingivalgraftcomparedtosinglelineincisionsubepithelialconnectivetissuegraftinthemanagementofmillerclassiandiigingivalrecessionarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial