Connective tissue grafts vs. double vs. coronally positioned grafts.
Journal name: Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Original article title: A comparison between connective tissue grafts combined with either double pedicle grafts or coronally positioned pedicle grafts: A clinical study
The Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology (JISP) publishes original scientific articles on periodontology (the study of supporting structures of teeth) and oral implantology. It is a bimonthly open-access journal with special issues for specific occasions.
This page presents a generated summary with additional references; See source (below) for actual content.
Original source:
This page is merely a summary which is automatically generated hence you should visit the source to read the original article which includes the author, publication date, notes and references.
Sunil Pendor, Vidya Baliga, Manohar L. Bhongade, Viral Turakia, Tony Shori
Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology:
(A bimonthly open-access journal)
Full text available for: A comparison between connective tissue grafts combined with either double pedicle grafts or coronally positioned pedicle grafts: A clinical study
Year: 2014 | Doi: 10.4103/0972-124X.134570
Copyright (license): CC BY-NC-SA
Summary of article contents:
Introduction
Gingival recession is a common condition that can lead to various dental issues, such as increased susceptibility to root caries and esthetic concerns. A variety of surgical techniques exist to address this issue, with sub-epithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) being noted for high success rates in root coverage. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two surgical techniques: the double pedicle graft (DPG) and the coronally positioned flap (CPF), both used in conjunction with SCTG, to treat isolated gingival recession defects.
Effectiveness of Surgical Techniques
The randomized clinical trial included 20 non-smoking participants with Miller's Class I or II recession defects. Subjects were divided into two groups, with one receiving DPG combined with SCTG and the other receiving CPF with SCTG. Results demonstrated significant improvements in recession depth for both approaches six months post-surgery, with mean root coverage results of 88% for the DPG group and 84% for the CPF group. While both techniques were effective, the increase in keratinized tissue was more pronounced in the DPG group, indicating a potential advantage of this surgical method when tissue augmentation is desired.
Conclusion
Both DPG and CPF techniques prove to be effective in enhancing root coverage for treating gingival recession, achieving high percentages of root coverage. The study concludes that either technique can be successfully employed, providing favorable outcomes in patients requiring increased keratinized tissue. Thus, clinicians can choose between DPG and CPF based on specific patient needs, with both techniques yielding comparable root coverage outcomes.
FAQ section (important questions/answers):
What were the objectives of the study on gingival recession treatment?
The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two surgical techniques: sub-epithelial connective tissue graft combined with a double pedicle graft and a coronally positioned flap for treating isolated gingival recession.
How many patients participated in the study and what were their characteristics?
A total of 20 healthy, non-smoking individuals aged 25 to 46 with single Miller's Class I or Class II recession defects were included in the study.
What were the key findings regarding root coverage after surgery?
The study found mean root coverage of 88% for the test group and 84% for the control group, indicating both techniques were effective but not significantly different.
What clinical parameters were measured in the study?
Clinical parameters assessed included gingival recession depth, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, width of keratinized gingival tissue, plaque index, and papillary bleeding index at baseline and 6 months post-operation.
What conclusion was drawn about the efficacy of the surgical techniques?
Both surgical approaches were found to be effective for root coverage, providing comparable outcomes, particularly in increasing the width of keratinized tissue.
Other Science Concepts:
Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Connective tissue grafts vs. double vs. coronally positioned grafts.’. Further sources in the context of Science might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:
Plaque index, Probing pocket depth, Clinical attachment level, Gingival Recession, Surgical technique, Root coverage, Periodontal department, Keratinized tissue.