Comparison of 2 Techniques of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Treatment of Gingival Recessions

Abstract

Treatment of human gingival recession defects by the 2 variants of SCTG resulted in significant recession reduction. When SCTG is grafted beneath alveolar mucosa using the combined technique (CP), transformation of the mucosa into keratinized tissue does not seem to occur, at least within 1 to 1.5 years postsurgery. The treatment outcome in terms of keratinized tissue width seems to be correlated with the presurgical gingival dimensions and the height of the graft that remains exposed at the end of the surgical procedure.

Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession-type defects?

“…[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Three RCTs reported the results from samples containing less than 10 patients per group at final examination, 13,35,36 two studies were classified as randomized non-controlled trials, 37,38 two presented a follow-up period <6 months, 39,40 two did not present a patientbased analysis 41,42 and one included recession areas containing teeth with restorations. 43 Of the 23 included studies, 5,12,15,44-63 fifteen had a splitmouth group study design 5,15,[44][45][46][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]57,58,[60][61][62]63 and seventeen were conducted at university dental clinics 5,12,44,…”

“…Reason for exclusion Berlucchi et al 2002 41 Patient-based analysis not presented Burkhardt and Lang 2005 35 Less than 10 patients per group at final examination Ç etiner et al 2003 42 Patient-based analysis not presented Cordioli et al 2001 43 Inclusion of recession areas containing teeth with restorations Daniel and Cheru 1990 22 It is not a randomized controlled trial Harris 1997 23 It is not a randomized controlled trial Harris 2000 24 It is not a randomized controlled trial Harris 2002 25 It is not a randomized controlled trial Harris et al 2005 26 It is not a randomized controlled trial Hirsch et al 2005 27 It is not a randomized controlled trial Jahnke et al 1993 36 Less than 10 patients per group at final examination Lafzi et al 2007 39 Follow-up period <6 months Laney et al 1992 40 Follow-up period <6 months Moses et al 2006 37 Randomized non-controlled trial Muller et al 1998 28 It is not a randomized controlled trial Muller et al 1999 29 It is not a randomized controlled trial Nemcovsky et al 2004 38 Randomized non-controlled trial Rahmani et al 2006 30 It is not a randomized controlled trial Ricci et al 1996 31 It is not a randomized controlled trial Ricci et al 1996 32 It is not a randomized controlled trial Sbordone et al 1988 33 It is not a randomized controlled trial Tal et al 2002 13 Less than 10 patients per group at final examination Wennströ m and Zucchelli 1996 34 It is not a randomized controlled trial j o u r n a l o f d e n t i s t r y 3 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 6 5 9 -6 7 1 j o u r n a l o f d e n t i s t r y 3 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 6 5 9 -6 7 1 heterogeneity was observed in some group comparisons (Table 3). …”

Soft Tissue Grafting Around Teeth and Implants

“…56 Submerged grafts without epithelial collar performed better esthetically, whereas exposed epithelial collar grafts resulted in better gingival augmentation with similar results in root coverage. 57 In spite of attempts to remove the epithelium, it remains in 80% of the grafts.…”

Recubrimiento de la superficie radicular expuesta (Parte II). Tratamiento quirúrgico y no quirúrgico

“…Cabe mencionar que Giampiero Cordioli y COlS. 11 compararon las técnicas de injerto de tejklo conectivo con colgajo en sobre y con reposición coronal no encontrandu diferencias porcentuales en términos de cubrimiento radicular.…”