A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from por...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of dentistry (Shiraz) 2022-09, Vol.23 (2 Suppl), p.402-409
Hauptverfasser: Fathiazar, Alireza, Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya, Sayar, Ferena
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold stand-ard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential bene-fits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treat-ment for root coverage can be investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG. This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was con-ducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + con-nective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodon-tal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preopera-tively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data. The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups ( Value< 0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW ( Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months). The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures.
ISSN:2345-6485
2345-6418
DOI:10.30476/DENTJODS.2021.90830.1535