Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: Part IV. Results After Three Years

Abstract

Twenty-six localized recessions treated with either a lateral sliding flap or a coronally repositioned flap procedure more than 3 years ago were reevaluated. Biometric measurements on the recipient and the donor of control teeth included: a) cementoenamel junction, gingival margin; b) sulcus depth; c) gingival margin, mucogingival line. These recordings were statistically compared to those taken 180 days after the surgical procedures were performed. Pairwise t tests were used to determine whether there were any changes between the 180 days and the 3 years postoperative control with either procedure. A two sample t test was run to see whether the changes obtained with the two procedures differed from each other. No significant changes were found. The values for gingival recession, sulcus depth and width of keratinized gingiva remained stable for both techniques throughout the observation period.

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.…”

“…Trombelli et al 57 (CAF+TRC+FG/CAF+TRC) Pini-Prato et al 59 (CAF+Pol/CAF+RP) Pini-Prato et al 61 (CAF+FTens/CAF no FTens) CTG Bouchard et al 25 (CTG+TRC/CTG+CARC) Borghetti and Louise 24 (CTG+DPF/no treatment) Bouchard et al 32 (CTG+TRC/CTG+CARC) Harris 31 (FGG knife method/FGG parallel incision methods) Harris 43 (CTG/acellular dermal matrix) GTR Trombelli et al 77 (ePTFE/ePTFE+TRC+FG) Roccuzzo et al 78 Guinard and Caffesse 45 Caffesse and Guinard 65 Caffesse and Guinard 46 Kunjamma et al 8 Laney et al 14 Ricci et al 28 Harris 29 Zucchelli et al 33 Jepsen et al 34 Trombelli et al 37 Harris 38 Borghetti et al 40 Tatakis and Trombelli 41 Rosetti et al 42 Trombelli et al 58 Amarante et al 62 Sbordone et al 10 Daniel and Cheru 12 Jahnke et al 15 Paolantonio et al 17 1. If the reporting of probing depth (PD) before and after treatment is included, only 59 out of 90 articles (65.6%) would have been accepted.…”

“…Numerous longitudinal human studies have been presented to support the efficacy and predictability of different surgical techniques that have been proposed to address this issue. 1 The proposals can be summarized as follows: palatal masticatory mucosa grafted onto the recession area (EFGG); 2-17 only a layer of connective tissue grafted onto the recession area (CTG); 10,12,15, use of the gingiva from adjacent teeth as a rotated and/or sliding pedicle flap to cover the exposed root surface (LPF); 8,44-52 moving the residual gingiva at the recession site in a coronal direction (CAF); 26,53-63 coronal positioning of previously grafted tissue (EFGG + CAF); 14,46,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] and use of resorbable and non-resorbable membranes according to the principles of guided tissue regeneration (GTR). 28,29,33,34,37,38,[40][41][42]58,62, A careful review made it possible to summarize the descriptive statistics reported in the published clinical studies on root coverage and to compute the missing statistics from the published data whenever possible.…”

Treatment of gingival recession

“…17 Coronally positioned flaps were compared with lateral sliding flaps in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. 18,19 In a 6-month report, both techniques rendered satisfactory results, and no differences in tissue coverage, sulcus depth, or gain of attached gingiva were reported. An average of 2.7 mm of soft tissue coverage was obtained, with average recession coverage of 67%.…”

Gingival recession: part 2. Surgical management using pedicle grafts

“…25,26 With these procedures there is a risk of donor site recession particularly with the laterally repositioned flap of approximately 1 mm. 27 The mean root coverage achieved with a single stage coronally repositioned flap varies between 55-99% and complete root coverage ranges from 24-95% of sites. 25,26 Pini-Patro et al 28 concluded that in order to achieve 100% root coverage with a coronally repositioned flap, the flap should be over compensated by 2-2.5 mm and sutured tension free.…”