Periosteal pedicle graft for the treatment of gingival recession defects current status and future prospects: What the evidence suggests?

Mahajan, Anshu; Asi, Kanwarjit Singh

doi:10.4103/0972-124x.170850

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the periosteum possesses a dense vascular plexus, it can be employed as a graft over an avascular root surface without causing necrosis. [ 17 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of periosteal pedicle flap in the treatment of gingival recessions for esthetic root coverage: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Bhavana

Gottumukkala

Penmetsa

et al. 2023

Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Root coverage using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is gold standard with few drawbacks such as requirement of second surgical site, reduced donor tissue availability, and increased surgical complications and pain. Periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) due to its rich source of pluripotent stem cells and nonrequirement of second surgical site could be a successful alternative for invasive SCTG. Therefore, current research aims to compare the amount of root coverage obtained with PPG to SCTG. Materials and Methods: Fifty-two single gingival recessions were included in the sample, with 26 patients allocated to the SCTG (control) and PPG (test) groups at random. At baseline, 3, and 6 months after surgery, clinical measurements of probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), and width of keratinized tissue were taken. Results: Both procedures, i.e., SCTG and PPG, resulted in root coverage to a variable extent and a significant decrease in RD (1.69, 1.38 mm in SCTG and PPG groups, respectively) and RW, CAL gain is found in both the groups without any intergroup statistical variance. Complete root coverage (CRC) was obtained in 14 out of 26, i.e., 53.8% defects in both SCTG and PPG groups. A better comfort level is found in the group treated with PPG. Conclusion: Gingival recessions can be successfully treated with PPG, which has predictability comparable to SCTG and does not require a second surgical site.

show abstract

“…Because the periosteum possesses a dense vascular plexus, it can be employed as a graft over an avascular root surface without causing necrosis. [ 17 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical evaluation of periosteal pedicle flap in the treatment of gingival recessions for esthetic root coverage: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Bhavana

Gottumukkala

Penmetsa

et al. 2023

Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent evidence indicates that the success of CAF can be improved by the additional use of grafts, while PPG is one of the recently developed techniques, which has shown promising results in the treatment of gingival recession defects. 12,13 Despite the immense popularity of the PPG technique in treating isolated GRD, [13][14][15][16] to the best of our knowledge, there is not even a single randomized controlled trial comparing PPG with CAF techniques for the management of MGRD. The aim of this study was to objectively evaluate PPG and CAF for the treatment of buccal MGRD in maxillary teeth.…”

Section: Initial Selection = 45 Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Effectiveness of the Novel Periosteal Pedicle Graft Technique with Coronally Advanced Flap for the Treatment of Long‐Span Unesthetic Multiple Gingival Recession Defects

Mahajan

Asi

2018

Clin Adv Periodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMultiple gingival recession defects (MGRD) are considered a complex clinical scenario; therefore, recent scientific evidence suggests the need for further clinical research for treating MGRD. While coronally advanced flap (CAF) is an established procedure for the effective management of MGRD, its success is limited in terms of long‐term stability. The periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) has been drawing considerable attention as a treatment modality for managing gingival recession defects (GRD) owing to its immense regenerative potential and has shown promising results.Case SeriesThirty‐five patients, with maxillary MGRD in the age group of 25 to 40 years were randomly divided into PPG (test) and CAF (control) groups. The percentage of root coverage along with mean change in probing depth (PD), gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) and width of attached gingiva (WAG) were recorded, at baseline and after 1 year. Patient satisfaction criteria were also compared, and the results were analyzed statistically.ConclusionAfter 1 year, the test group had 91.3% defect coverage while the control group had 76.3% defect coverage. PPG was more predictable than CAF in terms of percent root coverage with superior esthetic outcomes for the treatment of MGRD.

show abstract

Periosteal pedicle graft for the treatment of gingival recession defects current status and future prospects: What the evidence suggests?

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

Clinical evaluation of periosteal pedicle flap in the treatment of gingival recessions for esthetic root coverage: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Clinical evaluation of periosteal pedicle flap in the treatment of gingival recessions for esthetic root coverage: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparison of Effectiveness of the Novel Periosteal Pedicle Graft Technique with Coronally Advanced Flap for the Treatment of Long‐Span Unesthetic Multiple Gingival Recession Defects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About