Clinical and patient-centered outcomes using two types of subepithelial connective tissue grafts: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Autor: Zangrando MSR; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil., Eustachio RR; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil., de Rezende MLR; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil., Sant'ana ACP; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil., Damante CA; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil., Greghi SLA; Department of Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of periodontology [J Periodontol] 2021 Jun; Vol. 92 (6), pp. 814-822. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Oct 21.
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.19-0646
Abstrakt: Background: This split-mouth randomized clinical trial compared two different types of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) considering clinical parameters and patient-centered outcomes in patients with bilateral recession type 1 multiple gingival recessions after 6 months postoperatively.
Methods: A total of 21 patients were surgically treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) associated with SCTG harvested by: double blade scalpel (DBS) and de-epithelialized (DE) SCTG. Periodontal clinical parameters and esthetics were evaluated by a calibrated periodontist at baseline and after 6 months. Patient-centered outcomes related to pain/discomfort and esthetics were assessed with visual analogue scale after 7 days and 6 months, respectively.
Results: All clinical parameters, with the exception of probing depth, demonstrated differences in intragroup evaluation, comparing baseline to 6-month evaluation (P <0.05). Both groups presented reduction of recession depth and recession width and gain of keratinized tissue thickness, keratinized tissue width, and clinical attachment level (P <0.05). Intergroup comparison (DBS × DE) demonstrated no significant differences considering clinical parameters and periods. Both techniques improved esthetics evaluated by patients, without a difference between groups in patients and professional analysis. However, DBS group presented inferior pain/discomfort compared with DE (P <0.05).
Conclusion: DBS and DE associated with CAF presented satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, DBS presented inferior morbidity, an important fact for decision-making process.
(© 2020 American Academy of Periodontology.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: