These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Gingival recession treatment: guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane versus connective tissue graft.
    Author: Tatakis DN, Trombelli L.
    Journal: J Periodontol; 2000 Feb; 71(2):299-307. PubMed ID: 10711621.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Gingival recession represents a significant concern for patients and a therapeutic problem for clinicians. Several techniques have been proposed to achieve root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure in comparison to connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession defects. METHODS: Twelve patients, each contributing a pair of Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recessions, were treated. In each patient one randomly chosen defect received a poly(lactic acid)-based bioabsorbable membrane, while the paired defect received a CTG. Clinical recordings included oral hygiene standards and gingival health, recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KT). RESULTS: Mean RD statistically significantly decreased from 2.5 mm presurgery to 0.5 mm with GTR (81% root coverage), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with CTG (96% root coverage), at 6 months postsurgery. Prevalence of complete root coverage was 58% for the GTR group and 83% for the CTG group. Mean CAL gain was 2.0 mm for the GTR group and 2.2 mm for the CTG group. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed for changes in RD, RW, PD, CAL, and KT. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of human gingival recession defects by means of either GTR or CTG results in clinically and statistically significant improvement of the soft tissue conditions of the defect when pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared. Although differences between CTG and GTR in mean root coverage and prevalence of complete coverage consistently favored the CTG procedure, the differences in measurements were not statistically significant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]