Warning: include(/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/includes/code.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 2

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/includes/code.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 2
Treatment of Noncarious Cervical Lesions by a Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus a Composite Resin Restoration
Warning: include(/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prdincludes/05_update/javascript.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 39

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prdincludes/05_update/javascript.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/quintpub/public_html/journals/prd/abstract.php on line 39
Follow Us      

LOGIN

   Official Journal of The Academy of Osseointegration

 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 34 , Issue 5
September/October 2014

Pages 649–654


Treatment of Noncarious Cervical Lesions by a Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus a Composite Resin Restoration

Martin Leybovich, DDS, MSD/Nabil F. Bissada, DDS, MSD/Sorin Teich, DMD, MBA/Catherine A. Demko, MS, PhD/Paul A. Ricchetti, DDS, MScD


PMID: 25171035
DOI: 10.11607/prd.2033

This study compared two treatments for mild noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs): a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) versus a Class V composite resin restoration (CRR). Twenty-six sites with NCCLs were randomly assigned to be treated by CTG or CRR. Periodontal health parameters and dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) were recorded at baseline and 3 months postoperatively. Esthetics was also evaluated at 3 months. Results showed a significant improvement in all periodontal health parameters in the CTG treatment. The CTG treatment attained a mean 82% defect coverage with 75% of sites achieving complete coverage. Patients rated the CTG treatment to be significantly more esthetic (P = .03), while a clinician panel did not see an esthetic difference (P = .86). There was no difference in DH reduction between the two treatments (P = .81). In conclusion, the CTG treatment is superior to the CRR treatment for NCCLs based on periodontal health parameters. From a patient point of view, the CTG is the more esthetic treatment. (Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34:649–654. doi: 10.11607/prd.2033)


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

PRD Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help