Efficacy of Collagen Membrane Seeded With Autologous Gingival Fibroblasts in Gingival Recession Treatment: A Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study

Abstract

Background: Gingival recession (GR) is one of the most common esthetic concerns associated with periodontal tissues. Recently, tissue engineering technology has been developed and applied in periodontology for the treatment of GR. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of collagen membrane with or without autologous gingival fibroblasts under a coronally advanced flap for root coverage.Methods: In this split‐mouth, controlled clinical study, 22 sites are selected from 11 patients with Miller Class I recessions affecting canines or premolars in the maxillary arch. One tooth in each patient was randomized to receive either a collagen membrane (CM) (control group) or a collagen membrane seeded with autologous gingival fibroblasts (CM+GF) (test group) under a coronally advanced flap. Thickness of the gingiva, GR, and percentage of root coverage (PRC) were recorded by a calibrated examiner at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Furthermore, GR and PRC were evaluated using photogrammetric analysis at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months.Results: Both treatments resulted in a significant gain in root coverage compared with baseline. A statistically significant increase was detected in PRC in the test group compared with the control group. No significant difference was noted between the test and control sites regarding the thickness of the gingiva.Conclusions: The results indicated that CM+GF prepared by tissue engineering technology can be considered an alternative method for the treatment of Miller Class I recession defects.

Periodontal Soft Tissue Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review From the AAP Regeneration Workshop

“…Another long‐term study evaluating CAF‐treated sites (and already presented in Table 3) showed that, at baseline, 33 (55%) of 60 patients presented cervical dentin hypersensitivity, whereas after 8 years of follow‐up, 10 (18%) of 57 did not 216 . For GTR‐based procedures, no significant changes in cervical dentin hypersensitivity were seen 12 months after treatment 82 …”

“…A total of 101 articles 30‐131 with 94 RCTs potentially eligible for inclusion into the pooled estimates were identified in the base of evidence, and their main characteristics (i.e., number and age of participants, interventions, follow‐up period, number of sites exhibiting CRC, MRC [percentage], use of RMAs, randomization, allocation concealment, masking of examiners, completeness of the follow‐up period, and risk of bias) are depicted in Table 2 30‐131 . Seven studies were reported in two articles each, and their data were reported under one study name 37,38,57,58,65,66,83,84,90,91,110,111,115,116 …”

Living cell‐based regenerative medicine technologies for periodontal soft tissue augmentation

“…‒ Because of its properties, the dermal replacement graft was introduced in periodontal plastic surgery for soft tissue augmentation . More recent studies have addressed the outcomes of autologous gingival fibroblasts seeded in acellular scaffolds, such as collagen matrix (CM), acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or hyaluronic acid scaffold, in treating GRs or increasing keratinized tissue (KT) width.…”

Comparison of Different Sources of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Palatal versus Lipoaspirated Adipose Tissue

“…However, a large number of cells cannot be isolated from palatal adipose tissue (PAT) at the time of surgery or during liposuction unless the cells are maintained in cell culture dishes. Previous studies showed that autologous MSCs isolated from PAT might have potential in the regeneration of alveolar and craniofacial bone, periodontal treatment, and gingival recession treatment [Köseoğlu et al, 2013;Grimm et al, 2014].…”