Root coverage with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized trial.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Brazilian Oral Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084
Thaisa Macedo Iunes Carrera, Laryssa Moraes Machado, Marco Thúlio Rocha Soares, Gustavo Patrício Passos, Guilherme José Pimentel de Oliveira, Noé Vital Ribeiro Júnior, Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares, Suzane Cristina Pigossi
{"title":"Root coverage with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized trial.","authors":"Thaisa Macedo Iunes Carrera,&nbsp;Laryssa Moraes Machado,&nbsp;Marco Thúlio Rocha Soares,&nbsp;Gustavo Patrício Passos,&nbsp;Guilherme José Pimentel de Oliveira,&nbsp;Noé Vital Ribeiro Júnior,&nbsp;Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares,&nbsp;Suzane Cristina Pigossi","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare the use of connective tissue grafts (CTG) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) associated with the tunnel technique (TT) for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions (GR). Fourteen patients with multiple bilateral GR [type 1 recession (RT 1)] in the maxillary incisors, canines, and/or premolars were included. The TT was performed on both sides (split-mouth model); CTG (36 GR) was used on one side, and on the other, PRF (36 GR) was used. Clinical parameters, including recession depth (RD), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized gingiva thickness/width (GT/KTW), were obtained at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 16 months. Lower RD (0.81 ± 0.68 vs. 1.23 ± 0.71 mm) and CAL (2.54 ± 0.63 vs. 2.73 ± 0.82 mm) were observed for CTG compared to PRF after 16 months. Higher GT was obtained for CTG compared to PRF after 3 (1.81 ± 0.56 vs 1.43 ± 0.47 mm) and 6 months (1.67 ± 0.61 vs. 1.38 ± 0.55 mm, p < 0.05). The recession coverage (RC) was higher for CTG (55.42% ± 37.14) in comparison to PRF (29.53% ± 34.08) after 16 months (p < 0.05). Similarly, CTG presented a more complete coverage of the recession (15; 41.66%) than PRF (9; 24.32%). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery time, postoperative pain, or healing patterns. Greater esthetic satisfaction was obtained with CTG. It was concluded that CTG combined with TT showed clinical and esthetic results superior to those of PRF in multiple GR treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48942,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Oral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the use of connective tissue grafts (CTG) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) associated with the tunnel technique (TT) for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions (GR). Fourteen patients with multiple bilateral GR [type 1 recession (RT 1)] in the maxillary incisors, canines, and/or premolars were included. The TT was performed on both sides (split-mouth model); CTG (36 GR) was used on one side, and on the other, PRF (36 GR) was used. Clinical parameters, including recession depth (RD), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized gingiva thickness/width (GT/KTW), were obtained at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 16 months. Lower RD (0.81 ± 0.68 vs. 1.23 ± 0.71 mm) and CAL (2.54 ± 0.63 vs. 2.73 ± 0.82 mm) were observed for CTG compared to PRF after 16 months. Higher GT was obtained for CTG compared to PRF after 3 (1.81 ± 0.56 vs 1.43 ± 0.47 mm) and 6 months (1.67 ± 0.61 vs. 1.38 ± 0.55 mm, p < 0.05). The recession coverage (RC) was higher for CTG (55.42% ± 37.14) in comparison to PRF (29.53% ± 34.08) after 16 months (p < 0.05). Similarly, CTG presented a more complete coverage of the recession (15; 41.66%) than PRF (9; 24.32%). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery time, postoperative pain, or healing patterns. Greater esthetic satisfaction was obtained with CTG. It was concluded that CTG combined with TT showed clinical and esthetic results superior to those of PRF in multiple GR treatments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用富血小板纤维蛋白或结缔组织移植物覆盖根部:一项裂口随机试验。
本研究旨在比较结缔组织移植物(CTG)和富血小板纤维蛋白(PRF)联合隧道技术(TT)治疗多发性牙龈衰退(GR)的效果。包括14例上颌门牙、犬齿和/或前磨牙多发双侧GR[1型退缩(RT 1)]患者。双侧TT(裂口模型);一侧用CTG (36 GR),另一侧用PRF (36 GR)。临床参数包括消退深度(RD)、探诊深度、临床附着水平(CAL)和角化牙龈厚度/宽度(GT/KTW),分别在基线和1、3、6和16个月后获得。16个月后CTG的RD(0.81±0.68 vs. 1.23±0.71 mm)和CAL(2.54±0.63 vs. 2.73±0.82 mm)低于PRF。CTG术后3个月(1.81±0.56 vs 1.43±0.47 mm)和6个月(1.67±0.61 vs 1.38±0.55 mm, p < 0.05) GT高于PRF。16个月后,CTG的衰退覆盖率(RC)(55.42%±37.14)高于PRF(29.53%±34.08)(p < 0.05)。同样,CTG对经济衰退的报道也更为全面(15;41.66%)高于PRF (9;24.32%)。两组之间在手术时间、术后疼痛或愈合模式方面没有显著差异。CTG获得了更高的审美满意度。结论CTG联合TT的临床和美学效果优于PRF的多重GR治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Brazilian Oral Research
Brazilian Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Virtual learning object about oral ulcerative lesions: controlled educational intervention study. Braz. Oral Res. 2023:37:e118. Comparative study of sex estimates in adult skulls using direct measurement and tomographic image reconstruction. Braz Oral Res. 2023;37:e064. Association among COVID-19, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and oral health status. Braz Oral Res. 2023;37:e072. Evaluation of peripheral nerve fibers and mast cells in burning mouth syndrome. Erratum: Evaluation of the expression of nerve fiber markers in healthy and inflamed dental pulp. Braz Oral Res. 2023;37:e020.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1