Comparative Clinical Study of Connective Tissue Graft and Two Types of Bioabsorbable Barriers in the Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions

Background: Localized buccal recessions occur in more than 60% of individuals; therefore, there is a need for predictable root coverage techniques. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure versus connective tissue...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2003-08, Vol.74 (8), p.1196-1205
Main Authors: Çetiner, Deniz, Parlar, Ateş, Baloş, Köksal, Alpar, Reha
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Absorbable Implants
Adult
Clinical trials
comparison studies
Connective Tissue - transplantation
Dentistry
Dura Mater - transplantation
Female
follow‐up studies
Gingival Recession - surgery
gingival recession/therapy
Gingivoplasty - methods
grafts, connective tissue
guided tissue regeneration
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods
Humans
Lactic Acid
Male
Membranes, Artificial
membranes, barrier
Middle Aged
Mouth Mucosa - transplantation
periodontal regeneration
Polyglycolic Acid
Polymers
Vestibuloplasty - methods
Citations: 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: Localized buccal recessions occur in more than 60% of individuals; therefore, there is a need for predictable root coverage techniques. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of localized gingival recessions over a 12‐month postoperative period. Methods: Thirty bilateral matched pairs of localized buccal recessions in 22 patients were treated with CTG and GTR in this study. For the GTR procedure, two types of bioabsorbable barriers, polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) and solvent dehydrated duramater allograft (SDDA) membranes, were used and CTG was obtained from the palatal mucosa. The selected pairs of teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups (10 pairs per group): group 1, PLGA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); group 2, SDDA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); or group 3, PLGA (10 recessions) or SDDA (10 recessions). Statistical analysis evaluated both intra‐ and intergroup measurements. The height of gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue (KT), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD) were assessed at baseline and at 6, 9, and 12 months following surgery. Results: The amount of root coverage was 74.3%, 69.6%, and 86.3% with PLGA, SDDA, and CTG, respectively. The gain in KT was significant in the CTG group (P
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1902/jop.2003.74.8.1196