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
Evaluation of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus Acellular Dermal Matrix with Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel Technique in Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Randomized, Parallel-Design Clinical Trial
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 42 , Issue 6
November/December 2022

Pages 741–751


Evaluation of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Versus Acellular Dermal Matrix with Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel Technique in Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Randomized, Parallel-Design Clinical Trial

Fatema Elmahdi, PhD/Ahmed Reda, PhD/Manal Hosny, PhD


PMID: 36305926
DOI: 10.11607/prd.5522

The addition of grafting material to the tunnel procedure has yielded more stable outcomes than the tunnel procedure alone, but currently there is no available evidence about the most effective grafting material. This study compared two grafting materials—subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM)—with the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) in the management of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). Patients (n = 24) with recession type 1 MAGR sites were randomly allocated to treatment with ADM+MCAT (test group) or SCTG+MCAT (control group). The clinical parameters were recorded at baseline (before treatment) and 9 months postsurgery and included gingival recession depth (GRD), gingival recession width (GRW), gingival thickness (GT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and percentage of root coverage. Patient esthetic satisfaction and postoperative pain were recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS). After 9 months, significant reductions in GRD (2.10 ± 0.64 mm; 2.23 ± 0.68 mm) and GRW (2.41 ± 1.19 mm; 2.41 ± 1.94 mm), increases in GT (0.53 ± 0.41 mm; 0.94 ± 0.52 mm), and gains in CAL (2.46 ± 1.94 mm; 2.47 ± 1.28 mm) were recorded in the test and control groups, respectively. However, the control group showed more KTW gain (P = .0003) and increased GT (P = .002) than the test group. Patient satisfaction with esthetic outcome 9 months after treatment did not differ between test (VAS score: 8.24 ± 0.43) and control (VAS score: 8.24 ± 0.65) groups (P = 0.99). The use of ADM may represent an alternative to SCTG when used in conjunction with MCAT.


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