The aim of this multi-centre, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of Connective Tissue Graft alone (CTG) or in combination with Enamel Matrix Derivative (CTG+EMD) in the treatment of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions. The 56 selected defects were evaluated for probing depth (PD), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KT) and probing attachment level (PAL) and were measured at baseline and 12 months after treatment. The mean recession reduction was 3.9 ± 0.8 mm for the EMD-treated sites (test) and 3.6 ± 1.5 mm for the control group (p=0.22), corresponding to a mean root coverage of 90% and 80% for the test and control respectively (p=0.05). Complete root coverage could be obtained in 62% of the test sites versus 47% in the control (p=0.27). In conclusion, both procedures provided good soft tissue coverage. The better results of the test group did not achieve a statistical significance level
Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recessions with and without Enamel Matrix Derivative. A multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial / G. Rasperini, M. Roccuzzo, L. Francetti, R. Acunzo, D. Consonni, M. Silvestri. - In: THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY. - ISSN 0198-7569. - 31:2(2011), pp. 133-139.
Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recessions with and without Enamel Matrix Derivative. A multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial
G. RasperiniPrimo
;L. Francetti;
2011
Abstract
The aim of this multi-centre, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of Connective Tissue Graft alone (CTG) or in combination with Enamel Matrix Derivative (CTG+EMD) in the treatment of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions. The 56 selected defects were evaluated for probing depth (PD), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KT) and probing attachment level (PAL) and were measured at baseline and 12 months after treatment. The mean recession reduction was 3.9 ± 0.8 mm for the EMD-treated sites (test) and 3.6 ± 1.5 mm for the control group (p=0.22), corresponding to a mean root coverage of 90% and 80% for the test and control respectively (p=0.05). Complete root coverage could be obtained in 62% of the test sites versus 47% in the control (p=0.27). In conclusion, both procedures provided good soft tissue coverage. The better results of the test group did not achieve a statistical significance levelPubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.