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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |