Comparison of Two Surgical Procedures for Use of the Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in the Treatment of Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) 2007-07, Vol.78 (7), p.1209-1217
• Main Authors: Felipe, Maria Emília M.C., Andrade, Patrícia F., Grisi, Marcio F.M., Souza, Sérgio L.S., Taba, Mário, Palioto, Daniela B., Novaes, Arthur B.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Alloderm; Biocompatible Materials - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Collagen - therapeutic use; cosmetic techniques; Dentistry; esthetics; Esthetics, Dental; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; Female; Gingiva - surgery; gingival recession; Gingival Recession - surgery; Graft Survival; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Non tumoral diseases; Oral Surgical Procedures - methods; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Skin, Artificial; Surgical Flaps
• ISSN: 0022-3492; 1943-3670
• DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060356

Background: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical investigation was to compare two surgical techniques for root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft to evaluate which technique provided better root coverage, a better esthetic result, and less postoperative discomfort. Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. Fifteen pairs of recessions were treated and assigned randomly to the test group, and the contralateral recessions were assigned to the control group. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical releasing incisions; the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without vertical releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated were probing depth, relative clinical attachment level, gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue, thickness of keratinized tissue, esthetic result, and pain evaluation. The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. Results: At baseline, all parameters were similar for both groups. At 6 months, a statistically significant greater reduction in GR favored the control group. The percentage of root coverage was 68.98% and 84.81% for the test and control groups, respectively. The esthetic result was equivalent between the groups, and all patients tolerated both procedures well. Conclusions: Both techniques provided significant root coverage, good esthetic results, and similar levels of postoperative discomfort. However, the control technique had statistically significantly better results for root coverage of localized gingival recessions.