2019
DOI: 10.11607/prd.3562
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Split-Mouth Comparison of Coronally Advanced Flap with Connective Tissue Graft or Collagen Matrix for Treatment of Isolated Gingival Recessions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, 100% of the articles analysed in this study support the statement that Col can be used for gingival healing [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. However, 13% of the researchers emphasise that Col has less potential for GR healing compared with SCTG [ 14 , 18 ]. Two studies in this review analysed the physicochemical properties of the Col-based scaffold and the effect of the scaffold in GR [ 11 , 12 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, 100% of the articles analysed in this study support the statement that Col can be used for gingival healing [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. However, 13% of the researchers emphasise that Col has less potential for GR healing compared with SCTG [ 14 , 18 ]. Two studies in this review analysed the physicochemical properties of the Col-based scaffold and the effect of the scaffold in GR [ 11 , 12 ].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…In order to accommodate this problem from worsening, recent advancement in biomaterials is considerable as it has high biocompatible properties to human nature. Many studies have used Col-based scaffolds to study its effects in gingival healing using in vitro models [ 11 , 12 ], in vivo models [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], and clinical trials [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the literature proved that OsteoBiol ® materials could be used alone or in combination both for the regeneration of bone defects and soft tissue augmentation. For example, in the latter case, membranes, such as Derma, can be used alone as an alternative to connective tissue graft to improve the quality of keratinized tissues [ 166 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 ]. Apatos ® , instead, is a universal filler that can be employed to treat peri-implant defects and two-wall defects [ 68 , 74 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various collagen-based soft tissue substitute materials have been introduced in periodontal and peri-implant soft tissue reconstructive surgery. A number of clinical studies comparing autogenous CTGs with collagen-based matrices have noted the superiority of the autografts, especially in achieving an optimal thickness of the regenerated tissue [ 2 , 5 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 49 ]. The present study focused on a highly porous, volume-stable collagen matrix [ 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], which is able to overcome the volume-stability limitation of most commercially available grafts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of clinical studies have demonstrated the successful application of acellular collagen matrices in periodontal surgical reconstructions, with low patient morbidity [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Although collagen matrices are considered the graft substitutes providing the most similar outcomes to the autogenous CTGs, the majority of clinical studies comparing the two graft types have demonstrated the superiority of the CTGs, particularly in the treatment of gingival recessions [ 2 , 5 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] as well as in soft tissue augmentation procedures for increasing the width of keratinized tissue [ 15 , 19 ]. Thus, a comparison of an acellular dermal allograft with an autogenous CTG, both combined with coronally advanced flap in the treatment of surgically created Miller Class I recession defects, demonstrated a significantly higher gingival thickness in the CTG group, in spite of a similar graph thickness (1 mm) at the time of the surgical placement [ 20 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%