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 40 (2020), No. 1     3. Jan. 2020
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 40 (2020), No. 1  (03.01.2020)

Online Article, Page e27-e34, doi:10.11607/prd.4272, PubMed:31815984


Online Article: The Influence of Gingival Phenotype on the Outcomes of Coronally Advanced Flap: A Prospective Multicenter Study
Rasperini, Giulio / Codari, Michele / Paroni, Lorenzo / Aslan, Serhat / Limiroli, Enrico / Solís-Moreno, Carols / Suckiel-Papiór, Katarzyna / Tavelli, Lorenzo / Acunzo, Raffaele
The goal of this study was to evaluate the influence of gingival phenotype (GPh) on the clinical outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF). In this prospective study, 24 gingival recessions (recession type RT1 class or Miller Classes I and II) in 21 patients were treated with CAF alone. Patients were classified as having thin, medium, thick, or very thick GPh using a color-coded probe. At 6 months, the lowest mean root coverage (mRC; 60.4% ± 28.8%) and complete root coverage (CRC; 25%) were found in patients with thin GPh compared to patients with medium (mRC: 86.4% ± 17.6%; CRC: 60%), thick (mRC: 93.3% ± 14.9%; CRC: 83.3%), and very thick (mRC: 86.7% ± 26.7%; CRC: 80%) GPh. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant difference (P < .05) between thin and thick/very thick GPh in the likelihood of achieving CRC. Higher RES values were observed in patients with thick and very thick GPh (8.2 ± 1.5 and 8.4 ± 1.4, respectively), while thin GPh was related to the lowest RES score (6.3 ± 2.2). CAF performed in patients with thick or very thick GPh resulted in superior clinical and esthetic outcomes than thin and medium GPh. In particular, thin GPh was associated with the lowest mRC, CRC, and root coverage esthetic scores.