Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration
Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of periodontology (1970) 2000-09, Vol.71 (9), p.1441-1447 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1447 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1441 |
| container_title | Journal of periodontology (1970) |
| container_volume | 71 |
| creator | Rosetti, Elizabeth P. Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C. Rossa, Carlos Chaves, Eros S. Goissis, Gilberto Marcantonio, Elcio |
| description | Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.
Methods: Twenty‐four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre‐molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72309965</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>72309965</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4141-4311c07685a36e839d3401fa4fa181a53216c28f69991ae668bd071eafff483e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEFP2zAYhq2JaS2wP7DD5BO3BH-2m8S7sYoVUKWh0p0tN_ncuUrsLE5APe2vk9KiXXeybD_vc3gI-QIsBcX49S60KWeMpTmkKgUp4QOZgpIiEVnOzsiUMc4TIRWfkPMYd-MVpGCfyARg_MlzMSV_1x2avkHf02DpwvmtezY1XWGJMbrgv9F5aFrTmd49I33qh2pPv2P_gujp07DB1vW_sXbjZB68x_INW7sYB6SLztieGl_RxeAqrN7fV7hFjwdl8JfkozV1xM-n84L8-nG7nt8ly5-L-_nNMiklSEikAChZnhUzIzIshKqEZGCNtAYKMDPBISt5YTOlFBjMsmJTsRzQWGtlIVBckKujt-3CnwFjrxsXS6xr4zEMUedcMKWy2QjyI1h2IcYOrW4715hur4HpQ3Y9ZteH7DoHrfQh-zj6erIPmwarf5NT5xEojsCLq3H_H0r98Hi7enO_Al4HkRI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>72309965</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rosetti, Elizabeth P. ; Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C. ; Rossa, Carlos ; Chaves, Eros S. ; Goissis, Gilberto ; Marcantonio, Elcio</creator><creatorcontrib>Rosetti, Elizabeth P. ; Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C. ; Rossa, Carlos ; Chaves, Eros S. ; Goissis, Gilberto ; Marcantonio, Elcio</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.
Methods: Twenty‐four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre‐molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P <0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P = 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P = 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P = 0.024).
Conclusions: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques. J Periodontol 2000;71:1441‐1447.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3492</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-3670</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11022773</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>737 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611‐2690, USA: American Academy of Periodontology</publisher><subject>Absorbable Implants ; Adult ; Collagen ; Comparison studies ; Connective Tissue - transplantation ; connective tissue/surgery ; Dentistry ; Esthetics, Dental ; Female ; Gingiva - transplantation ; Gingival Recession - surgery ; gingival recession/therapy ; grafts, connective tissue ; guided tissue regeneration ; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods ; Humans ; Male ; Membranes, Artificial ; membranes, barrier ; membranes, bioabsorbable ; Middle Aged ; Oral Surgical Procedures - methods ; Patient Satisfaction ; Surgical Flaps ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of periodontology (1970), 2000-09, Vol.71 (9), p.1441-1447</ispartof><rights>2000 American Academy of Periodontology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4141-4311c07685a36e839d3401fa4fa181a53216c28f69991ae668bd071eafff483e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1902%2Fjop.2000.71.9.1441$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1902%2Fjop.2000.71.9.1441$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11022773$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rosetti, Elizabeth P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossa, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Eros S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goissis, Gilberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcantonio, Elcio</creatorcontrib><title>Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration</title><title>Journal of periodontology (1970)</title><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><description>Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.
Methods: Twenty‐four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre‐molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P <0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P = 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P = 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P = 0.024).
Conclusions: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques. J Periodontol 2000;71:1441‐1447.</description><subject>Absorbable Implants</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Collagen</subject><subject>Comparison studies</subject><subject>Connective Tissue - transplantation</subject><subject>connective tissue/surgery</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Esthetics, Dental</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gingiva - transplantation</subject><subject>Gingival Recession - surgery</subject><subject>gingival recession/therapy</subject><subject>grafts, connective tissue</subject><subject>guided tissue regeneration</subject><subject>Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Membranes, Artificial</subject><subject>membranes, barrier</subject><subject>membranes, bioabsorbable</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oral Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Surgical Flaps</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0022-3492</issn><issn>1943-3670</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEFP2zAYhq2JaS2wP7DD5BO3BH-2m8S7sYoVUKWh0p0tN_ncuUrsLE5APe2vk9KiXXeybD_vc3gI-QIsBcX49S60KWeMpTmkKgUp4QOZgpIiEVnOzsiUMc4TIRWfkPMYd-MVpGCfyARg_MlzMSV_1x2avkHf02DpwvmtezY1XWGJMbrgv9F5aFrTmd49I33qh2pPv2P_gujp07DB1vW_sXbjZB68x_INW7sYB6SLztieGl_RxeAqrN7fV7hFjwdl8JfkozV1xM-n84L8-nG7nt8ly5-L-_nNMiklSEikAChZnhUzIzIshKqEZGCNtAYKMDPBISt5YTOlFBjMsmJTsRzQWGtlIVBckKujt-3CnwFjrxsXS6xr4zEMUedcMKWy2QjyI1h2IcYOrW4715hur4HpQ3Y9ZteH7DoHrfQh-zj6erIPmwarf5NT5xEojsCLq3H_H0r98Hi7enO_Al4HkRI</recordid><startdate>200009</startdate><enddate>200009</enddate><creator>Rosetti, Elizabeth P.</creator><creator>Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C.</creator><creator>Rossa, Carlos</creator><creator>Chaves, Eros S.</creator><creator>Goissis, Gilberto</creator><creator>Marcantonio, Elcio</creator><general>American Academy of Periodontology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200009</creationdate><title>Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration</title><author>Rosetti, Elizabeth P. ; Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C. ; Rossa, Carlos ; Chaves, Eros S. ; Goissis, Gilberto ; Marcantonio, Elcio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4141-4311c07685a36e839d3401fa4fa181a53216c28f69991ae668bd071eafff483e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Absorbable Implants</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Collagen</topic><topic>Comparison studies</topic><topic>Connective Tissue - transplantation</topic><topic>connective tissue/surgery</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Esthetics, Dental</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gingiva - transplantation</topic><topic>Gingival Recession - surgery</topic><topic>gingival recession/therapy</topic><topic>grafts, connective tissue</topic><topic>guided tissue regeneration</topic><topic>Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Membranes, Artificial</topic><topic>membranes, barrier</topic><topic>membranes, bioabsorbable</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oral Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Surgical Flaps</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rosetti, Elizabeth P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossa, Carlos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaves, Eros S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goissis, Gilberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marcantonio, Elcio</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rosetti, Elizabeth P.</au><au>Marcantonio, Rosemary Adriana C.</au><au>Rossa, Carlos</au><au>Chaves, Eros S.</au><au>Goissis, Gilberto</au><au>Marcantonio, Elcio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration</atitle><jtitle>Journal of periodontology (1970)</jtitle><addtitle>J Periodontol</addtitle><date>2000-09</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1441</spage><epage>1447</epage><pages>1441-1447</pages><issn>0022-3492</issn><eissn>1943-3670</eissn><abstract>Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.
Methods: Twenty‐four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre‐molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.
Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P <0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P = 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P = 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P = 0.024).
Conclusions: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques. J Periodontol 2000;71:1441‐1447.</abstract><cop>737 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611‐2690, USA</cop><pub>American Academy of Periodontology</pub><pmid>11022773</pmid><doi>10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-3492 |
| ispartof | Journal of periodontology (1970), 2000-09, Vol.71 (9), p.1441-1447 |
| issn | 0022-3492 1943-3670 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72309965 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Absorbable Implants Adult Collagen Comparison studies Connective Tissue - transplantation connective tissue/surgery Dentistry Esthetics, Dental Female Gingiva - transplantation Gingival Recession - surgery gingival recession/therapy grafts, connective tissue guided tissue regeneration Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods Humans Male Membranes, Artificial membranes, barrier membranes, bioabsorbable Middle Aged Oral Surgical Procedures - methods Patient Satisfaction Surgical Flaps Treatment Outcome |
| title | Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T23%3A57%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Treatment%20of%20Gingival%20Recession:%20Comparative%20Study%20Between%20Subepithelial%20Connective%20Tissue%20Graft%20and%20Guided%20Tissue%20Regeneration&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20periodontology%20(1970)&rft.au=Rosetti,%20Elizabeth%20P.&rft.date=2000-09&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1441&rft.epage=1447&rft.pages=1441-1447&rft.issn=0022-3492&rft.eissn=1943-3670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E72309965%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=72309965&rft_id=info:pmid/11022773&rfr_iscdi=true |