Xenogenous collagen matrix and/or enamel matrix derivative for treatment of localized gingival recessions: A randomized clinical trial. Part I: Clinical outcomes

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorSangiorgio, João Paulo Menck
dc.contributor.authorDa Silva Neves, Felipe Lucas
dc.contributor.authorDos Santos, Manuela Rocha
dc.contributor.authorFrança-Grohmann, Isabela Lima
dc.contributor.authorCasarin, Renato Corrêa Viana
dc.contributor.authorCasati, Márcio Zaffalon
dc.contributor.authorSantamaria, Mauro Pedrine
dc.contributor.authorSallum, Enilson Antonio
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-28T19:07:09Z
dc.date.available2022-04-28T19:07:09Z
dc.date.issued2017-12-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Considering xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) characteristics, it is suggested that their combination could promote superior clinical outcomes in root coverage procedures. Thus, the aim of this parallel, double-masked, dual-center, randomized clinical trial is to evaluate clinical outcomes after treatment of localized gingival recession (GR) by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with CM and/or EMD. Methods: Sixty-eight patients presenting one Miller Class I or II GRs were randomly assigned to receive either CAF (n = 17); CAF + CM (n = 17); CAF + EMD (n = 17), or CAF + CM + EMD (n = 17). Recession height, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width and thickness were measured at baseline and 90 days and 6 months after surgery. Results: The obtained root coverage was 68.04% ± 24.11% for CAF; 87.20% ± 15.01% for CAF + CM; 88.77% ± 20.66% for CAF + EMD; and 91.59% ± 11.08% for CAF + CM + EMD after 6 months. Groups that received biomaterials showed greater values (P <0.05). Complete root coverage (CRC) for CAF + EMD was 70.59%, significantly superior to CAF alone (23.53%); CAF + CM (52.94%), and CAF + CM + EMD (51.47%) (P <0.05). Keratinized tissue thickness gain was significant only in CM-treated groups (P <0.05). Conclusions: The three approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage. EMD provides highest levels of CRC; however, the addition of CM increases gingival thickness. The combination approach does not seem justified.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Prosthesis and Periodontology Division of Periodontics Piracicaba Dental School State University of Campinas
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Diagnosis and Surgery Division of Periodontics State University of São Paulo Campus
dc.format.extent1309-1318
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2017.170126
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Periodontology, v. 88, n. 12, p. 1309-1318, 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.1902/jop.2017.170126
dc.identifier.issn0022-3492
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85035353467
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/220974
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Periodontology
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectCollagen
dc.subjectEnamel matrix proteins
dc.subjectGeneral surgery
dc.subjectGingival recession
dc.subjectSurgery, plastic
dc.subjectTooth root
dc.titleXenogenous collagen matrix and/or enamel matrix derivative for treatment of localized gingival recessions: A randomized clinical trial. Part I: Clinical outcomesen
dc.typeArtigo

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos