Monica Mele

Coronally Advanced Flap With and Without Vertical Releasing Incisions for the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Comparative Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND Vertical releasing incisions might damage the blood supply to the flap and result in unesthetic visible white scars. The aim of the present study was to compare root coverage and esthetic outcomes of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) with and without vertical releasing incisions in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. METHODS Thirty-two systemically and periodontally healthy subjects with esthetic complaints due to the exposure of Miller Class I and II multiple (at least two) gingival recession defects (> or =1 mm) affecting adjacent teeth of the same quadrant of the upper jaw were enrolled in the study. Sixteen patients (with 45 gingival recessions) were randomly assigned to the control group, and the other 16 patients (with 47 recession defects) were assigned to the test group. All recessions were treated with a CAF; vertical releasing incisions were performed in the control group, whereas an envelope-type flap was used in the test group. The patients postoperative morbidity was assessed 1 week after the surgery, whereas the esthetic evaluation, made by the patient and independent periodontist, and the clinical evaluation were made 1 year later. RESULTS Surgical time was significantly shorter in the envelope-type CAF group. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between the two groups in terms of recession reduction and clinical attachment level gain. A statistically greater probability of complete root coverage (adjusted odds ratio, 3.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 15.33; P <0.05) and a greater increase in buccal keratinized tissue height were observed with the envelope type of CAF. Patient satisfaction with esthetics was very high in both treatment groups, with no statistically significant differences between them. A better postoperative course and better results in the esthetic evaluation made by an independent periodontist were demonstrated in patients treated with the envelope type of CAF. CONCLUSIONS Both CAF techniques were effective in reducing recession depth. The envelope type of CAF was associated with an increased probability of achieving complete root coverage and with a better postoperative course. Keloid formation along the vertical releasing incisions was responsible for the worst esthetic evaluation made by an independent expert periodontist.

Patient morbidity and root coverage outcome after subepithelial connective tissue and de‐epithelialized grafts: a comparative randomized‐controlled clinical trial

AIMS The aim of this randomized-controlled clinical trial was to compare the patient morbidity and root coverage outcomes of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with connective tissue (CTG) or de-epithelialized gingival (DGG) grafts. METHODS Fifty patients with one recession each were treated. In the control group, the CTG was harvested using the trap-door approach while in the test group the CTG resulted from the de-epithelialization of a free gingival graft. RESULTS No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between groups in patientss pain killer consumption, post-operative discomfort and bleeding. Lower stress and better ability to chew were demonstrated in the CTG group. Analgesic consumption increased with increasing height of the graft and in the case of dehiscence/necrosis of the primary flap. Pain was negatively correlated with the residual thickness of soft tissue covering the palatal bone. A statistically greater increase in buccal soft tissue thickness was observed in the DGG group. CONCLUSIONS No differences were demonstrated in the post-operative pain and root coverage outcome in patients subjected to CAF with CTG or DGG.

Non-carious cervical lesions associated with gingival recessions: a decision-making process.

BACKGROUND A method to predetermine the maximum root coverage level (MRC) was recently demonstrated to be reliable in predicting the position of the soft tissue margin after root coverage surgery. The aim of the present study is to suggest a decision-making process for treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) associated with gingival recessions based upon the topographic relationship between the MRC and NCCL and to assess patient and independent-periodontist esthetic evaluations. METHODS Five treatments were performed in 94 patients with NCCLs associated with a single gingival recession: 1) coronally advanced flap (CAF); 2) bilaminar procedure; 3) coronal odontoplasty plus restoration plus root odontoplasty plus CAF; 4) restoration plus CAF; and 5) restorative therapy. Clinical and esthetic evaluations made by the patient and an independent periodontist were done 1 year after treatments. RESULTS The satisfaction of the patient and periodontist with esthetics was very high in all NCCL treatments and Miller Class gingival recessions. The patient satisfaction and evaluation of root coverage and the periodontist evaluation of root coverage were statistically correlated with color-match evaluations and not with the amount of root coverage clinically achieved in each patient. CONCLUSION The proposed approaches provided good esthetic appearance and correct emergence profile for the great majority of NCCLs associated with gingival recessions.

Predetermination of Root Coverage

BACKGROUND A method to predetermine the maximum root coverage level (MRC) achievable with surgery was recently presented. The present study evaluates the predictability of such a method by comparing the predetermined MRC with that effectively achieved by means of root coverage surgical procedures. METHODS A total of 50 patients with single and multiple recession defects were enrolled. MRC was predetermined by an independent periodontist by assessing the ideal height of the interdental papilla. The distance from the apical reference point of a stent (StRP) and the MRC was measured 7 days before root coverage surgery. A total of 135 Miller Class I, II, and III gingival recessions were treated with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) or with the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). The distance from StRP and the gingival margin (GM) was measured by another independent periodontist 15, 30, and 90 days after surgery. RESULTS In 97 (71.8%) of 135 treated gingival recessions, the StRP-MRC distance coincided exactly with the StRP-GM distance. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the cases with exact predetermination between gingival recessions belonging to the maxilla or mandible and between gingival defects treated with CAF or SCTG. The StRP-MRC distance measured before surgery was greater in 24 recession defects (17.7%) and lower in 14 gingival recessions (10.3%) than the StRP-GM distance measured 90 days after surgery. More cases of underestimation and fewer cases with overestimation of the level of root coverage were found in the SCTG group compared to the CAF group. The difference was statistically significant (P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS The adopted method was effective in predetermining the position of the soft tissue margin 90 days after root coverage surgery. The cases with underestimation of the level of root coverage should be considered clinically and esthetically successful.

Hand and Ultrasonic Instrumentation in Combination With Root-Coverage Surgery : A Comparative Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND The role of vigorous root planing in the surgical treatment of gingival recession was recently questioned. The aim of the present randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study was to compare the effectiveness, in terms of root coverage, of hand and ultrasonic root instrumentation in combination with a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of isolated-type recession defects. METHODS Eleven systemically and periodontally healthy subjects with bilateral recession defects (> or = 3 mm) of similar (< or = 1 mm) depth affecting contralateral teeth were enrolled in the study. Only Miller Class I gingival recession with no deep cervical abrasion or root caries/demineralization were included in the study. Control root exposures were treated with curets, whereas test roots were instrumented with ultrasonic piezoelectric devices. Randomization for test and control treatment was performed by a coin toss immediately prior to surgery. All recessions were treated with a coronally advanced flap surgical technique. The clinical reevaluation was made 6 months after surgery. RESULTS The two approaches resulted in a high percentage of root coverage (95.4% in the control group and 84.2% in the test group) and complete root coverage (82% in the control group and 55% in the test teeth), with no statistically significant difference between them. Clinical attachment level gains were clinically significant in both groups (3.36 +/- 0.92 mm in the control group and 2.90 +/- 0.70 mm in the test group), with no statistically significant difference between them. The increase in keratinized tissue height was statistically significant in both groups (0.55 +/- 0.52 mm in the control group and 0.36 +/- 0.67 mm in the test group), with no difference between them. CONCLUSIONS The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority, in terms of root-coverage results, for hand instruments over ultrasonic treatment of the root surface in combination with coronally advanced flap mucogingival surgery. Further studies of longer-term duration and larger sample size could help to establish the superiority of one form of root instrumentation in conjunction with root-coverage surgery.

Root coverage in molar teeth: a comparative controlled randomized clinical trial

AIM To compare the clinical outcomes of laterally moved, coronally advanced flap (LMCAF) versus Bilaminar technique (BT) in the treatment of single gingival recession on molar teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty patients showing Miller I and II gingival recessions at first molar teeth were treated: 25 were randomly assigned to the BT group and 25 belonged to the LMCAF group. Patients post-operative morbidity was assessed 1 week after the surgery, while aesthetic evaluation and the clinical evaluation were made 1 year later. RESULTS No statistically significant difference was demonstrated in terms of recession and PPD reduction. Statistically greater probability of complete root coverage (CRC, Odds Ratio 22.1) and greater increase in gingival thickness were observed in the BT group. Greater increase in keratinized tissue was obtained in the LMCAF. Patient satisfaction with aesthetics was very high in both treatment groups. Better post-operative course was observed in the LMCAF, while better post-operative sensitivity and root coverage evaluation were demonstrated in patients treated with BT. CONCLUSIONS Gingival recession at first molar teeth can be successfully treated with LMCAF and BT. Better CRC was achieved with BT, while more comfortable post-operative course was associated with the LMCAF.