Root Surface Biomodification With EDTA for the Treatment of Gingival Recession With a Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap

Background: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of gingival recession therapy using the semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SCRF) with or without EDTA application for root surface biomodification. Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2007-09, Vol.78 (9), p.1695-1701
Main Authors: Bittencourt, Sandro, Ribeiro, Érica Del Peloso, Sallum, Enilson Antônio, Sallum, Antônio Wilson, Nociti, Francisco Humberto, Casati, Márcio Zaffalon
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Analysis of Variance
Biological and medical sciences
Chelating Agents - adverse effects
Dentin Sensitivity - chemically induced
Edetic Acid - adverse effects
EDTA
Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology
Female
Gingival Recession - surgery
gingival recession/therapy
Gingivoplasty - methods
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Non tumoral diseases
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Statistics, Nonparametric
Surgical Flaps
Tooth Root - drug effects
tooth root/surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of gingival recession therapy using the semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SCRF) with or without EDTA application for root surface biomodification. Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions (≤4.0 mm) were selected. Thirty teeth with recessions were assigned randomly to receive the semilunar coronally repositioned flap with (SCRF‐E group) or without (SCRF group) the application of an EDTA gel. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width (WKT) and thickness of keratinized tissue, probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and 6 months post‐surgery. Patient perception of root sensitivity and postoperative pain also was evaluated. Results: Both treatments yielded significant improvements in terms of RH and RW decrease and CAL gain compared to baseline values. For SCRF‐E and SCRF, the average root coverage was 70.2% and 90.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), and the complete root coverage was 40.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Only the SCRF group had a significant (P
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2007.060507