We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 16 (1996), No. 6     1. Nov. 1996
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 16 (1996), No. 6  (01.11.1996)

Page 539-545


A Clinical/Statistical Comparison Between the Subpedicle Connective Tissue Graft Method and the Guided Tissue Regeneration Technique in Root Coverage
Ricci / Silvestri / Tinti / Rasperini
Subepithelial connective tissue grafts and guided tissue regeneration have been shown to be effective means to obtain root coverage. The purpose of this study is to compare statisticaly the results obtained with these techniques 1 year after the surgical procedures were performed. Thirty-six gingival recessions belonging to Class I and Class II of the Miller classification were treated: 18 cases with subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) and 18 cases with guided tissue regeneration (GTR). Each patinet was randomly assigned to a group. At baseline, the group treated with subepithelial connective tissue grafts presented a mean recession of 4.88 mm, whereas the group treated with guided tissue regeneration presented a mean recession of 5.88 mm (P = 0.82). After 1 year, the mean root coverage was 77.08% in the SCTG group and 80.88% in the GTR group. The difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). The mean root coverage was 3.83 mm for the SCTG group and 4.61 mm for the GTR group. The mean gain in probing attachment level was 3.05 mm for the SCTG group and 5.55 mm for the GTR group. The difference was statistically significant (P = .01). In conclusion, the mean root coverage obtained was similar for the two groups, whereas the clinical attachment gain was greater in the GTR group. Therefore, it appears that the GTR technique is preferable when severe mucogingival defects are present and gain of clinical attachment level is mandatory.