Cargando…

A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fathiazar, Alireza, Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya, Sayar, Ferena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36588965
http://dx.doi.org/10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.90830.1535
_version_ 1784858930063605760
author Fathiazar, Alireza
Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya
Sayar, Ferena
author_facet Fathiazar, Alireza
Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya
Sayar, Ferena
author_sort Fathiazar, Alireza
collection PubMed
description STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treat-ment for root coverage can be investigated. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was con-ducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + con-nective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodon-tal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preopera-tively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups (p Value< 0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW (p Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9789336
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97893362022-12-30 A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage Fathiazar, Alireza Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya Sayar, Ferena J Dent (Shiraz) Original Article STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treat-ment for root coverage can be investigated. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG. MATERIALS AND METHOD: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was con-ducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + con-nective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodon-tal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preopera-tively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups (p Value< 0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW (p Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9789336/ /pubmed/36588965 http://dx.doi.org/10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.90830.1535 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Dentistry https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License, ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Fathiazar, Alireza
Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya
Sayar, Ferena
A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title_full A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title_fullStr A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title_short A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
title_sort comparison between mucoderm® and connective tissue graft for root coverage
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36588965
http://dx.doi.org/10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.90830.1535
work_keys_str_mv AT fathiazaralireza acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage
AT shariatmadarahmadiroya acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage
AT sayarferena acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage
AT fathiazaralireza comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage
AT shariatmadarahmadiroya comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage
AT sayarferena comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage