{"title":"隧道和 VISTA 技术在治疗多发性牙龈退缩方面的比较:系统性文献综述。","authors":"Ksenija Matvijenko, Rokas Borusevičius","doi":"10.34172/japid.2024.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gingival recession (GR) has become one of the most common concerns in oral mucosal diseases. It causes discomfort such as root hypersensitivity, root caries, and aesthetic problems, leading to the development of various surgical techniques to address GRs. This study compared the non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques in treating multiple GRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search related to the efficiency of non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (ScienceDirect), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting periodontal parameters published in the recent four years (2019-2023) were included and assessed for the risk of bias. All in vitro, animal, pilot studies, case reports, and case series were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included with 195 cases of GRs. Comparing the two techniques revealed a significant increase in keratinized tissue width (KTW) from baseline to 6 months (-1.4 mm), in clinical attachment level (CAL) (-2.65 mm), and in recession depth (-2.7 mm) for the tunnel technique. On the other hand, a significant increase in GR width (-2.26 mm) was found in the m-VISTA group. Finally, there were no significant differences in probing depths.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both techniques were effective in root coverage and may be valuable for treating multiple GRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","volume":"16 1","pages":"49-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11252151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of tunnel and VISTA techniques for multiple gingival recession treatment: A systematic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Ksenija Matvijenko, Rokas Borusevičius\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/japid.2024.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gingival recession (GR) has become one of the most common concerns in oral mucosal diseases. It causes discomfort such as root hypersensitivity, root caries, and aesthetic problems, leading to the development of various surgical techniques to address GRs. This study compared the non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques in treating multiple GRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search related to the efficiency of non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (ScienceDirect), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting periodontal parameters published in the recent four years (2019-2023) were included and assessed for the risk of bias. All in vitro, animal, pilot studies, case reports, and case series were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included with 195 cases of GRs. Comparing the two techniques revealed a significant increase in keratinized tissue width (KTW) from baseline to 6 months (-1.4 mm), in clinical attachment level (CAL) (-2.65 mm), and in recession depth (-2.7 mm) for the tunnel technique. On the other hand, a significant increase in GR width (-2.26 mm) was found in the m-VISTA group. Finally, there were no significant differences in probing depths.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both techniques were effective in root coverage and may be valuable for treating multiple GRs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"49-54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11252151/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:牙龈退缩(GR)已成为口腔黏膜疾病中最常见的问题之一。牙龈退缩会导致牙根过敏、牙根龋坏等不适症状,还会影响美观,因此人们开发了各种手术技术来治疗牙龈退缩。本研究比较了非高级隧道技术和 m-VISTA 技术在治疗多发性 GRs 方面的效果:在 MEDLINE (PubMed)、EMBASE (ScienceDirect)、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library)、Springer Link 和 Google Scholar 中进行了有关非高级隧道技术和 m-VISTA 技术效率的文献检索。纳入了最近四年(2019-2023 年)发表的报告牙周参数的随机对照试验(RCT),并评估了偏倚风险。所有体外研究、动物研究、试验研究、病例报告和病例系列研究均被排除在外:结果:共纳入了 5 项 RCT,195 例 GRs。比较两种技术后发现,隧道技术的角化组织宽度(KTW)从基线到 6 个月(-1.4 毫米)、临床附着水平(CAL)(-2.65 毫米)和退缩深度(-2.7 毫米)均显著增加。另一方面,m-VISTA 组的 GR 宽度显著增加(-2.26 毫米)。最后,探查深度没有明显差异:结论:这两种技术都能有效覆盖牙根,对治疗多发性牙根缺损很有价值。
Comparison of tunnel and VISTA techniques for multiple gingival recession treatment: A systematic literature review.
Background: Gingival recession (GR) has become one of the most common concerns in oral mucosal diseases. It causes discomfort such as root hypersensitivity, root caries, and aesthetic problems, leading to the development of various surgical techniques to address GRs. This study compared the non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques in treating multiple GRs.
Methods: A literature search related to the efficiency of non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (ScienceDirect), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting periodontal parameters published in the recent four years (2019-2023) were included and assessed for the risk of bias. All in vitro, animal, pilot studies, case reports, and case series were excluded.
Results: Five RCTs were included with 195 cases of GRs. Comparing the two techniques revealed a significant increase in keratinized tissue width (KTW) from baseline to 6 months (-1.4 mm), in clinical attachment level (CAL) (-2.65 mm), and in recession depth (-2.7 mm) for the tunnel technique. On the other hand, a significant increase in GR width (-2.26 mm) was found in the m-VISTA group. Finally, there were no significant differences in probing depths.
Conclusion: Both techniques were effective in root coverage and may be valuable for treating multiple GRs.