Abstract
Background: The aim of this paper is to review the major quantitative and qualitative therapeutic outcomes for gingival recession defects in the esthetic zone. Methods: PubMed and MEDLINE were searched for entries up to April, 2012. For the assessment of quantitative parameters, criteria for considering studies for this assessment was based on the most current systemic review by Chambrone published in April, 2012. For the assessment of qualitative parameters, only studies that evaluated the soft tissue esthetic outcome of recession areas treated with root coverage procedures were included. Findings: Quantitative measurements of root coverage, such as percentage of root coverage and the percentage of gingival augmentation, provide objective assessment and the advantage of reliability. However, parameters that account for the global esthetic evaluation are not evaluated by the quantitative measurements. On the other hand, qualitative evaluation, such as scarring, texture, volume, color, gingival contour, and the location of mucogingival junction, is subjective and per se imperfect. It is limited to esthetic appearance and cannot replace the clinical quantitative assessment. More explicit criteria are required to improve the reliability of scales for esthetic assessment. Conclusions: The final esthetic goal of a root coverage procedure should include the achievement of complete root coverage and the complete soft tissue integration.
Highlights
Gingival recession is defined as the location of the gingival margin being apical to the cemeto-enamel junction (CEJ) [1], and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental esthetics
The types of participants included (1) A clinical diagnosis of localized gingival recession-type defect; (2) Recession areas selected for treatment classified as Miller Class I or Class II [3] that were surgically treated by means of periodontal plastic surgery (PPS) procedures; (3) Availability of individual patient data for inclusion in the statistic model to integrate the information of patient characteristics into the analysis of the efficacy of treatment procedures; (4) Individuals greater than 18 years old; (5) Treatment teeth located in the esthetic zone, including incisors, canines, and premolars in the maxillary arch
coronally positioned flap (CPF)+subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) vs CPF: The outcome of gingival recession therapy using CPF alone or in conjunction with SCTG was compared by da Silva et al [17]
Summary
Gingival recession is defined as the location of the gingival margin being apical to the cemeto-enamel junction (CEJ) [1], and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental esthetics. According to Miller’s classification [3], Miller Class I signifies marginal tissue recession not extending to the mucogingival junction (MGJ) and no loss of interdental bone or soft tissue. Miller Class II indicates marginal tissue recession extends to or beyond the MGJ and no loss of interdental bone or soft tissue. Miller Class III denotes marginal tissue recession extends to or beyond the MGJ and loss of interdental bone or soft tissue is apical to the CEJ but coronal to the marginal extent of the marginal tissue recession. The aim of this paper is to review the major quantitative and qualitative therapeutic outcomes for gingival recession defects in the esthetic zone
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
