Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part I. Clinical and patient-centred outcomes

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 582-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto Zuhr ◽  
Stephan F. Rebele ◽  
David Schneider ◽  
Rony E. Jung ◽  
Markus B. Hürzeler
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Enamel Matrix ◽  
Digital Measuring ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Measuring Methods ◽  
Coronally Advanced Flap ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tunnel Technique ◽  
Matrix Derivative

scholarly journals Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 4475-4486
Author(s):  
Bartłomiej Górski ◽  
Renata Górska ◽  
Joanna Wysokińska-Miszczuk ◽  
Tomasz Kaczyński
Keyword(s):  
Connective Tissue ◽  
Enamel Matrix Derivative ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Enamel Matrix ◽  
Root Coverage ◽  
Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Tissue Graft ◽  
Tunnel Technique ◽  
Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft ◽  
Matrix Derivative

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with or without enamel matrix derivative (EMD), in the treatment of gingival recession types 1 and 2. Materials and methods A total of 20 patients with 150 multiple gingival recessions (GR) were included in the study. On one side, MCAT was combined with SCTG and EMD (tests), whereas MCAT with SCTG was applied on the contralateral side (controls). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Visual analog scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes and the root coverage esthetic score (RES) for professional esthetic evaluation. Results MCAT+SCTG+EMD was not superior with regard to root coverage. At 6 months, average root coverage (ARC) was 87.4% for SCTG+EMD-treated and 90.9% for SCTG-treated defects (p = 0.4170). Complete root coverage (CRC) was observed in 86.7% (tests) and 85.3% (controls) of the cases (p = 0.9872). Significantly less pain was reported using VAS (p = 0.0342) post-operatively in the SCTG+EMD group. Professional assessment of esthetic outcomes using RES showed a significant difference (9.25 versus 8.71, p = 0.0103) in favor of the test group. Conclusions Both treatment modalities were equally effective in treatment of multiple GR and led to similar improvements in clinical parameters. However, the application of EMD as an adjunct resulted in less post-operative pain and better professionally assessed esthetic outcomes. Clinical relevance Patients’ early morbidity and 6-month esthetic outcomes following GR coverage with MCAT might be influenced by means of EMD utilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document