Long‐Term Stability of Root Coverage by Coronally Advanced Flap Procedures

Abstract

In this 3-year follow-up of a subgroup of patients from a previous 6-month RCT, there was a high correlation between the results for RC after 6 months and 3 years, indicating their stability. These data suggest that 6-month outcomes may be useful to predict long-term outcomes in CAF procedures with or without additional use of CMX.

Adjunctive benefit of a xenogenic collagen matrix associated with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A superiority, assessor‐blind, randomized clinical trial

“…Authors suggested stable clinical outcomes over the additional 6 months in terms of mean root coverage (76.3% for CAF + CMX and 75.0% for CAF) and complete root coverage (36% for CAF + CMX and 31% for CAF). Further evidence on the stability of the obtained clinical outcomes after 6‐month and 12‐month year for both procedures was further reported in a third subgroup analysis after 3‐year follow‐up (Jepsen, Stefanini, Sanz, Zucchelli, & Jepsen, ). In the present study despite greater estimates of CRC were observed, a worsening trend of the clinical results obtained was however noted between 6 and 12 months especially in the control group although this difference resulted statistically not significant.…”

Long‐term stability of root coverage procedures for single gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…For CAF + ADM, original data showed that CRC was 3/13 at 6 months and reduced to 1/13 at 2 years, and MRC was 76.18 ± 20.81% at 6 months and decreased to 68.04 ± 17.87% at 2 years (de Queiroz Cortes et al., ). In the sites treated by CAF + XCM, CRC was reported 11/18 (6 months) versus 11/18 (3 years; Jepsen et al., ) and 12/17 (6 months) versus 9/17 (5 years; McGuire & Scheyer, ). And MRC was reported 89.94 ± 14.46% (6 months) versus 91.70 ± 12.05% (3 years; Jepsen et al., ) and 89.5 ± 19.2% (6 months) versus 77.6 ± 29.2% (5 years; McGuire & Scheyer, ), respectively.…”

“…Then, a total of 38 articles were selected for full‐text screening. Finally, 15 RCTs (Abolfazli, Saleh‐Saber, Eskandari, & Lafzi, ; Amarante, Leknes, Skavland, & Lie, ; Bittencourt et al., ; Cortellini et al., ; Del Pizzo, Zucchelli, Modica, Villa, & Debernardi, ; Fernandes‐Dias et al., ; Jepsen et al., , ; Kuis et al., ; Leknes et al., ; McGuire & Nunn, ; McGuire & Scheyer, , ; McGuire, Scheyer, & Nunn, ; McGuire, Scheyer, & Schupbach, ; McGuire, Scheyer, & Snyder, ; Nizam, Bengisu, & Sonmez, ; Pini Prato et al., ; Pini‐Prato et al., ; de Queiroz Cortes, Sallum, Casati, Nociti, & Sallum, ; Rasperini et al., ; Rosetti, Marcantonio, Zuza, & Marcantonio, ; Santamaria et al., ) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The rest 23 studies were excluded for different reasons (Table ).…”

“…However, this result should be interpreted with caution. Because one study indicated better 5‐year stability of CAF + CTG compared to CAF + XCM for single gingival recessions (McGuire & Scheyer, ), whereas the other two studies set the control group as CAF rather than CAF + CTG (Jepsen et al., ; de Queiroz Cortes et al., ). Hence, more attention should be paid to compare the long‐term validity of the alternative bio‐products with that of CTG.…”

“…Technique‐related factors including operation process and operator skills could have an immediate and essential impact on the predictability and the overall efficacy of the surgery (Zuhr, Rebele, Cheung, Hurzeler, & Wound, ). Site‐related factors may also have an influence on the stability, such as width of keratinized tissue band (Jepsen et al., ; Kuis et al., ; Rasperini et al., ), thickness of keratinized tissue (Bittencourt et al., ; de Queiroz Cortes et al., ) and non‐caries cervical lesion (Rasperini et al., ). At the patient level, smoking (Leknes et al., ), ageing (Pini Prato et al., ) and oral hygiene habits (Rasperini et al., ) appear to be relevant in the maintenance of root coverage.…”