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 33 (2013), No. 5     15. Aug. 2013
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 33 (2013), No. 5  (15.08.2013)

Page 619-625, doi:10.11607/prd.1337, PubMed:23998158


Enamel Matrix Derivative (Emdogain) or Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Adjacent Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Pilot Study
Alkan, Eylem Ayhan / Parlar, Ates
One treatment approach for achieving healing by regeneration is the application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) during periodontal surgery. The aim of this randomized clinical study was to compare the efficacy of EMD with a connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of adjacent Miller Class l and II multiple gingival recessions. Twelve systemically healthy subjects with at least two Miller Class I or II multiple gingival recession defects affecting adjacent teeth on both sides of the mouth were enrolled. The surgical protocol was performed for both groups. The 56 recession defects were evaluated for recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), percentage of root coverage (PRC), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). All measurements were repeated at 6 and 12 months. The mean PRC at the final evaluation was 89% ± 17% for the coronally advanced flap (CAF) + EMD group and 93% ± 17% for the CAF + CTG group. Both treatments resulted in statistically significant decreases in RD and RW and increases in HKT at 6 and 12 months. There was also a significant CAL gain for both groups. PD remained shallow over time. The results demonstrated that both procedures were successful in treating Miller Class I and II multiple gingival recessions; however, the greater results of the CAF + CTG group did not reach a statistically significant level.