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 36 (2016), No. 4     15. June 2016
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 36 (2016), No. 4  (15.06.2016)

Online Article, Page 67-75, doi:10.11607/prd.2461, PubMed:27333020


Online Article: A Comparison of Acellular Dermal Matrix Allograft and Periosteal Pedicle Graft Covered by Coronally Advanced Flap in the Treatment of Gingival Recession: 1-Year Follow-Up Study
Godavarthi, Lalasa / Murthy, K. Raja V. / Pavankumar, Sandhya
The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) and acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) in conjunction with coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of gingival recession during a 1-year follow-up. A sample of 14 patients, each with two similar Miller Class I or II gingival recession (28 recession sites), was selected. Each recession site was randomly assigned to the experimental site (PPG + CAF) or the control site (ADMG + CAF). The clinical parameters recorded at baseline and 12 months postoperatively were probing pocket depth, width of keratinized gingiva, and clinical attachment level, whereas full-mouth and sitespecific plaque and gingival index and vertical recession depth and width were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Analysis was performed to determine if treatment differences were present. The mean recession depth in experimental sites decreased from 2.89 ± 0.40 mm at baseline to 0.25 ± 0.50 mm at 12 months, corresponding to a mean root coverage of 92.79% ± 14.25%. In control sites, recession shrank from 2.93 ± 0.55 mm at baseline to 0.32 ± 0.46 mm at 12 months follow-up, demonstrating a mean root coverage of 89.79% ± 14.73%. Compared to the use of ADMA, the PPG technique uses similar incision design and flap management at the graft site, is equivalent in technique sensitivity, and has a perceived improvement in esthetic outcome.