Multiple gingival recessions associated with non-carious cervical lesions treated by partial restoration and modified coronally advanced flap with either connective tissue graft or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix: A randomized clinical trial
Background: This study aimed to compare a connective tissue graft (CTG) to a (porcine) xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix (XDM), both associated with modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) and partial resin composite restoration to treat multiple combined defects (CDs). Methods: Seventy-eight defec...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/249636 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.22-0516 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/249636 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | dental esthetic dentin sensitivity gingival recession heterografts tooth abrasion tooth cervix |
| Sumario: | Background: This study aimed to compare a connective tissue graft (CTG) to a (porcine) xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix (XDM), both associated with modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) and partial resin composite restoration to treat multiple combined defects (CDs). Methods: Seventy-eight defects in 38 patients presenting multiple combined defects, that is, gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were treated by partial resin composite restoration (apical margin up to 1 mm of the estimated cement-enamel junction) and MCAF along with CTG or XDM. After 6 months, the groups were compared with regard to clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic outcomes. Results: CD coverage was 72.9% for CTG versus 50.7% for XDM (P < 0.001). Recession reduction was 2.3 mm for CTG versus 1.5 mm for XDM (P < 0.001). CTG resulted in a greater increase in keratinized tissue width (CTG: 0.96 mm vs. XDM: 0.3 mm, P = 0.04) and gingival thickness (CTG: 0.9 mm vs. XDM: 0.3 mm, P < 0.001). Both treatments successfully reduced dentin hypersensitivity and increased esthetics satisfaction, with no statistically significant intergroup differences. Moreover, XDM patients experienced a shorter surgery duration (CTG: 57.2 min vs. XDM: 37.4 min, P < 0.001) and less time to no pain (visual analog scale = 0; CTG: 6.5 days vs. XDM: 3.5 days, P = 0.04). Conclusion: CTG resulted in significantly greater root coverage and increased keratinized tissue width compared to XDM for treating multiple partially restored CDs. However, increased root coverage at the CTG sites was accounted for by increased probing depth compared to the XDM sites. |
|---|