Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: Part I. Lateral Sliding Flap

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate biometrically the changes that occur on the recipient as well as on the donor tooth with regard to gingival recession, sulcus depth and width of keratinized gingiva after performing a lateral sliding flap in the treatment of localized denuded roots. Fourteen teeth with gingival recession were treated using a lateral sliding flap. Measurements were recorded preoperatively and 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery. A mean gain of 2.69 mm of soft tissue coverage over the denuded root was found 6 months postoperatively which represents 69% of coverage. The mean gain in width of keratinized gingiva averaged 3.15 mm. On the donor tooth an average gingival recession of 1.1o mm was found after 6 months, and the width of keratinized gingiva decreased an average of 1.25 mm. Results remained stable after 30 days postsurgery.

Evidence‐Based Mucogingival Therapy. Part 1: A Critical Review of the Literature on Root Coverage Procedures

“…When more than one study reported follow-up data on the same patients, 45,46,65,69,70 we reported the data extracted from the most recent study; in one study, 65 we chose the shorter follow-up because it covered a larger number of patients.…”

Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: Part III. Comparison of Results Obtained With Lateral Sliding and Coronally Repositioned Flaps

“…The methodology used and the results obtained with the individual techniques have been reported separately. 3,6 All data obtained were analyzed statistically to deter mine the significance of the results after the use of the lateral sliding flap and the coronally repositioned flap. The results with both techniques were compared to test the following hypotheses:…”

Rationale for the Surgical Treatment of Single and Multiple Recession-Type Defects

“…Furthermore, other subsequent modifi cations and standardisations of technique by Bjorn [ 69 ], Smukler [ 70 ], Patur [ 71 ], Guinard and Caffesse [ 72 ], Leis and Leis [ 73 ], Bahat et al [ 74 ], Milano [ 75 ] and more recently Zucchelli et al [ 76 ] were proposed either to improve the characteristics of the fl ap or to provide better protection to the donor areas. In addition, with the development and results of other techniques after the mid-1980s, especially those involving the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts, soft tissue substitutes and guided tissue regeneration combined with coronally advanced fl ap procedures, the scientifi c community seems has lost interest in the evaluation of LPF.…”