传统与皮瓣保护游离牙龈移植:一项多中心随机临床试验。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry Brazilian Oral Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0001
Vanessa Camillo de Almeida, Claudio Mendes Pannuti, Marcelo Sirolli Ferreira, Rafael de Oliveira Lazarin, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Ronald Ernst Jung, Dimitris Nikolaos Tatakis, Cleverson de Oliveira E Silva, João Batista Cesar Neto
{"title":"传统与皮瓣保护游离牙龈移植:一项多中心随机临床试验。","authors":"Vanessa Camillo de Almeida,&nbsp;Claudio Mendes Pannuti,&nbsp;Marcelo Sirolli Ferreira,&nbsp;Rafael de Oliveira Lazarin,&nbsp;Giuseppe Alexandre Romito,&nbsp;Ronald Ernst Jung,&nbsp;Dimitris Nikolaos Tatakis,&nbsp;Cleverson de Oliveira E Silva,&nbsp;João Batista Cesar Neto","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of a modified gingival graft technique, in which the released flap is positioned and sutured over the graft, with the conventional free gingival graft (FGG) procedure, when both are used for gingival augmentation. A 12-month, multicenter parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted. Subjects with buccal RT2 gingival recessions and keratinized tissue width (KTW) < 2 mm in at least one mandibular incisor were randomized to control group (n = 20; conventional FGG) or test group (n = 20; modified FGG; flap sutured over FGG using sling sutures). The primary outcome (KTW) was measured at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months, as was keratinized tissue thickness (KTT). Postoperative pain (POP) and analgesic intake were also recorded. Both techniques promoted a significant increase in KTW and KTT when compared to baseline (p < 0.05) with no significant differences between groups (KTW change of 6.1±1.5 mm and 5.4±1.6 mm, for control and test, respectively; p=0.16). However, test group patients reported less POP after 7 days and used less analgesic medication than control group patients (p < 0.05). We concluded that the modified FGG was comparable to conventional FGG in augmenting keratinized tissue width and thickness at mandibular incisors, but resulted in less patient morbidity.","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":"{\"title\":\"Conventional versus flap-protected free gingival graft: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Vanessa Camillo de Almeida,&nbsp;Claudio Mendes Pannuti,&nbsp;Marcelo Sirolli Ferreira,&nbsp;Rafael de Oliveira Lazarin,&nbsp;Giuseppe Alexandre Romito,&nbsp;Ronald Ernst Jung,&nbsp;Dimitris Nikolaos Tatakis,&nbsp;Cleverson de Oliveira E Silva,&nbsp;João Batista Cesar Neto\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of a modified gingival graft technique, in which the released flap is positioned and sutured over the graft, with the conventional free gingival graft (FGG) procedure, when both are used for gingival augmentation. A 12-month, multicenter parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted. Subjects with buccal RT2 gingival recessions and keratinized tissue width (KTW) < 2 mm in at least one mandibular incisor were randomized to control group (n = 20; conventional FGG) or test group (n = 20; modified FGG; flap sutured over FGG using sling sutures). The primary outcome (KTW) was measured at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months, as was keratinized tissue thickness (KTT). Postoperative pain (POP) and analgesic intake were also recorded. Both techniques promoted a significant increase in KTW and KTT when compared to baseline (p < 0.05) with no significant differences between groups (KTW change of 6.1±1.5 mm and 5.4±1.6 mm, for control and test, respectively; p=0.16). However, test group patients reported less POP after 7 days and used less analgesic medication than control group patients (p < 0.05). We concluded that the modified FGG was comparable to conventional FGG in augmenting keratinized tissue width and thickness at mandibular incisors, but resulted in less patient morbidity.\",\"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.vol37.0001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0001","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

摘要

本研究的目的是比较一种改良的牙龈移植技术的结果,在这种技术中,将释放的皮瓣定位并缝合在移植物上,与传统的游离牙龈移植(FGG)手术相比,两者都用于牙龈增强。进行了一项为期12个月的多中心平行随机对照试验。至少有一个下颌切牙有颊部RT2牙龈萎缩和角化组织宽度(KTW) < 2mm的受试者随机分为对照组(n = 20;常规FGG组或试验组(n = 20;修改FGG;皮瓣用吊带缝合于FGG上)。主要结局(KTW)在基线和3、6和12个月后测量,角化组织厚度(KTT)。同时记录术后疼痛(POP)和镇痛剂量。与基线相比,两种技术均显著提高了KTW和KTT (p < 0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(对照组和试验组KTW变化分别为6.1±1.5 mm和5.4±1.6 mm;p = 0.16)。而实验组患者在7 d后出现的POP较少,使用的镇痛药物也少于对照组(p < 0.05)。我们的结论是,改良的FGG在增加下颌门牙角化组织的宽度和厚度方面与传统的FGG相当,但导致的患者发病率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Conventional versus flap-protected free gingival graft: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.
The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of a modified gingival graft technique, in which the released flap is positioned and sutured over the graft, with the conventional free gingival graft (FGG) procedure, when both are used for gingival augmentation. A 12-month, multicenter parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted. Subjects with buccal RT2 gingival recessions and keratinized tissue width (KTW) < 2 mm in at least one mandibular incisor were randomized to control group (n = 20; conventional FGG) or test group (n = 20; modified FGG; flap sutured over FGG using sling sutures). The primary outcome (KTW) was measured at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months, as was keratinized tissue thickness (KTT). Postoperative pain (POP) and analgesic intake were also recorded. Both techniques promoted a significant increase in KTW and KTT when compared to baseline (p < 0.05) with no significant differences between groups (KTW change of 6.1±1.5 mm and 5.4±1.6 mm, for control and test, respectively; p=0.16). However, test group patients reported less POP after 7 days and used less analgesic medication than control group patients (p < 0.05). We concluded that the modified FGG was comparable to conventional FGG in augmenting keratinized tissue width and thickness at mandibular incisors, but resulted in less patient morbidity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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