Treatment Of Gingival Recession Defects Research Articles

Clinical evaluation of GEM 21S® and a collagen membrane with a coronally advanced flap as a root coverage procedure in the treatment of gingival recession defects: A comparative study

Aim:Clinical evaluation of efficacy of rhPDGF-BB plus beta tricalcium phosphate (GEM 21S®) along with a collagen membrane in root coverage using a coronally advanced flap.Materials and Methods:This human case series evaluated the clinical outcome of rhPDGF-BB with beta-tricalcium phosphate (GEM 21S®) and a collagen membrane in the treatment of recession defects using a coronally advanced flap. Patients were followed postoperatively, and healing was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, with recession depth as the primary outcome measure.Results:This pioneer case series revealed a favorable tissue response to GEM 21S® and collagen membrane from both clinical and esthetic point of view in regenerative periodontal surgery.

Treatment of gingival recession with collagen membrane and DFDBA: a histometric study in dogs

In a previous study, we evaluated the findings related to the use of resorbable collagen membranes in humans along with DFDBA (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft). The aim of this subsequent study was to histometrically evaluate in dogs, the healing response of gingival recessions treated with collagen membrane + DFDBA (Guided Tissue Regeneration, GTR) compared to a coronally positioned flap (CPF). Two types of treatment were randomly carried out in a split-mouth study. Group 1 was considered as test (GTR: collagen membrane + DFDBA), whereas Group 2 stood for the control (only CPF). The dogs were given chemical bacterial plaque control with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate during a 90-day repair period. Afterwards, the animals were killed to obtain biopsies and histometric evaluation of the process of cementum and bone formation, epithelial migration and gingival level. A statistically significant difference was found between groups with a larger extension of neoformed cementum (GTR = 32.72%; CPF = 18.82%; p = 0.0004), new bone (GTR = 23.20%; CPF = 09.90%; p = 0.0401) and with a smaller area of residual gingival recession in the test group (GTR = 50.69%; CPF = 59.73%; p = 0.0055) compared to the control group. The only item assessed that showed no statistical difference was epithelial proliferation on the root surface, with means of 15.14% for the GTR group and 20.34% for the CPF group (p = 0.0890). Within the limits of this study we concluded that the treatment of gingival recession defects with GTR, associating collagen membrane with DFDBA, showed better outcomes in terms of a larger extension of neoformed cementum and bone, as well as in terms of a smaller proportion of residual recessions.

Periosteal pedicle graft for the treatment of gingival recession defects: a novel technique

The periosteum is a highly cellular connective tissue with rich vascularity and regenerative potential. These qualities make it a suitable autogenous graft. A technique utilizing autogenous periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) for the treatment of gingival recession defects is described. Four patients with Miller Class I and II recessions > or = 3 mm were treated utilizing PPG. At the end of one year, all defects were completely covered. The PPG technique can be used for the treatment of gingival recession defects successfully.

A Patient‐Centered Clinical Evaluation of Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in the Treatment of Gingival Recession Defects

The present randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate acellular dermal matrix (ADM) graft in terms of patient satisfaction and its effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession. Fourteen patients (seven males and seven females) with Miller Class I and II recessions > or =3 mm participated in this 6-month clinical study. They were assigned randomly to the ADM group (ADM graft and coronally positioned flap [CPF]) or the CPF group (CPF alone). Results were evaluated based on parameters measuring patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes associated with the two treatment procedures. Significance was set at P <0.05. The mean recession was 4.0 +/- 1.0 mm and 3.7 +/- 0.7 mm for the ADM and CPF groups, respectively. For the ADM group, the defect coverage was 3.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 97.14% compared to the CPF group, in which the defect coverage was 2.85 +/- 0.89 mm or 77.42%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the remaining clinical parameters and overall patient satisfaction except in criteria related to patient comfort and cost effectiveness, in which CPF alone produced significantly better results (P <0.03). ADM graft is significantly superior with regard to effectiveness and efficiency in the treatment of gingival recession than CPF alone. CPF emerges as a better option than ADM graft in terms of cost effectiveness and patient comfort.

Periodontal regeneration in gingival recession defects.

Surgical treatment of gingival recession defects aims at obtaining soft tissue coverage of exposed root surfaces and/or augmentation of gingival tissue dimensions. A variety of protocols have been developed to manage these clinical problems. Since one goal of periodontal therapy is the regeneration of the lost attachment apparatus of the tooth, full restoration of defect should be accomplished following mucogingival procedures. This implies regeneration of all periodontal structures, including formation of new cementum with inserting connective tissue fibers, alveolar bone regeneration and recreation of a functional and aesthetic morphology of the mucogingival complex. Animal and human histological studies have shown that healing at gingiva-root interface following pedicle flaps or free soft tissue grafts generally includes a long junctional epithelium with varying amounts of a new connective tissue attachment in the most apical aspect of the covered root surface. Limited bone regeneration has been observed. Adjunctive use of root conditioning agents and cell excluding, wound-stabilizing devices may amplify regenerative outcomes. Changes in the amount of keratinized tissue, which can significantly affect the aesthetic outcome of treatment, have been shown to depend on the interactions among various tissues involved in the healing process and the selected surgical procedure.