A Case Report of Improvement of Gummy Smile Using Lip Repositioning Technique followed up for one year

Iikura, Takuya; Matsuda, Satoru; Otake, Chihiro; Kusama, Jun; Iizuka, Nana; Ozawa, Masumi; Kawakata, Tomohiro; Horiuchi, Yasushi; Saito, Hirotaka; Hirabayashi, Yoko

doi:10.2329/perio.61.57

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Out of 38 articles included in this review, 36 were in English language. Two articles in Japanese [ 56 ] and Korean [ 51 ] languages were translated in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we did not find any established definition for complete relapse or stability of the results for each patient who undergone LRS. For a number of studies, the stability of the results was not defined by the authors; nevertheless, in the result section, the treatment outcome was reported as stable [ 12 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 46 , 51 – 56 , 58 ]. Therefore, stability and complete relapse outcomes in the current study were defined based on the judgment of the experts (NM and SY).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of Different Modalities of Lip Repositioning Surgery for Management of Patients Complaining of Excessive Gingival Display: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Younespour

Yaghobee

Aslroosta

et al. 2021

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This study is aimed at synthesizing the available evidence regarding effectiveness of various modalities (combinations of LRS tasks) and comparison between each two modalities in terms of gingival display reduction, success rate, stability of the results, patient’s satisfaction, and postoperative morbidity. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Cochrane Library, Google Scholar databases, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched up to 27th June 2020 regarding lip repositioning surgery. The modalities were defined as the combinations of the following tasks: frenectomy (yes/no), flap thickness (full/partial), and myotomy (yes/no). Meta-analyses were performed on gingival display change from baseline to months 3, 6, and 12 in each modalities using Stata (v.16). Results. 38 studies (including three clinical trials, two quasiexperimental studies, seven case series, and 26 case reports) met the criteria for final inclusion. The mean gingival display reduced from baseline to 6 months ( WMD = − 2.90 , 95% CI: -4.85 to -0.95) in the patients undergoing the “frenectomy + full-thickness flap + myotomy” modality. This parameter decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months, respectively ( WMD = − 2.68 , 95% CI: -3.49 to -1.86; WMD = − 2.52 , 95% CI: -4.40 to -0.64), in patients undergoing the “frenectomy + partial-thickness flap + without myotomy” modality. In patients who undergone the “without frenectomy + partial-thickness flap + without myotomy” modality, gingival display reduced from baseline to 6 months ( WMD = − 3.22 , 95% CI: -5.61 to -0.84). Almost 83% of patients with modality 1 had satisfaction. Conclusions. Gingival display within the 6 months after LRS could be reduced with all modalities. Descriptively, the greatest reduction was observed in patients with the modality not including the frenulum.

show abstract

“…Out of 38 articles included in this review, 36 were in English language. Two articles in Japanese [ 56 ] and Korean [ 51 ] languages were translated in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%