Enamel matrix proteins (Emdogain) in combination with coronally advanced flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of shallow gingival recessions

This article describes two different surgical techniques of root coverage using Emdogain and shows preliminary results on 26 shallow recessions in 14 patients. For the treatment of 13 recessions, Emdogain was used in combination with a coronally advanced flap (CAF+EMD group). In the other 13 recessions, Emdogain and the flap were used in combination with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG+EMD group). For the CAF+EMD group, the root coverage at 6 months was 93.97%, with an attachment gain of 3.2 mm; for the CAF+CTG+EMD group, the root coverage was 93.59%, with an attachment gain of 3.4 mm (no statistically significant difference between groups). When complete root coverage was not achieved, the residual recession was 1 mm in four cases and 2 mm in one case. Keratinized gingiva was increased for both groups, but more for the CAF+CTG+EMD group (1.38 mm versus 0.69 mm; statistically significant difference). Clinical attachment level decreased significantly in both groups, from 4.46 to 1.23 mm in the CAF+EMD group, and from 4.62 to 1.23 mm in the CAF+CTG+EMD group. Preliminary results show that Emdogain, in combination with CAF or CAF+CTG for the treatment of Miller Class I or II gingival recessions, displays good clinical results, with percentage of root coverage comparable or superior to other techniques. Further experimental studies on the dynamics of wound healing are needed to prove that EMD is really responsible for improving the percentage of regenerated versus repaired tissues with respect to other techniques.     

Coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a 2-year study

AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to improve root coverage with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) during a 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Fifteen patients each with two single and similar bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions (30 recessions) were selected. Each recession was randomly assigned to the test group (CAF+EMD) or the control group (CAF only). Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months were recession depth (R), recession width (WR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue (KT). RESULTS: Reduction of R resulted in a significant CAL gain in both groups, whereas PD was not altered. In the test group, R decreased from 4.07 mm (SD+/-0.59) at baseline to 0.47 mm (SD+/-0.74) at 24 months, corresponding to a mean root coverage (MRC) of 90.67%, whereas in the control group R shrank from 4.13 mm (SD+/-0.74) at baseline to 0.60 mm (SD+/-0.83) at 24 months (MRC=86.67%). Complete root coverage was achieved at 24 months in 73.33% and 60% of the two groups. A significant KT increase was observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Root coverage outcomes were similar in both groups and no statistically significant differences were found at all between them. Hence, the additional use of EMD to CAF is not justified for clinical benefits of root coverage, but as an attempt of achieving periodontal regeneration rather than repair.     

Coronally positioned flap with or without acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of Class I gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the treatment of Class I gingival recessions by coronally positioned flap with or without acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADM). METHODS: Thirteen patients with comparable bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions (> or = 3.0 mm) were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: coronally positioned flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM group) or coronally positioned flap alone (CPF group). The clinical parameters included: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession height (RH), recession width (RW), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI). The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. RESULTS: The mean baseline recession was 3.4 mm and 3.5 mm for ADM group and CPF group, respectively. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant root coverage (P < 0.01), reaching an average of 2.6 mm (76%) in the ADM group and 2.5 mm (71%) in the CPF group. The difference in recession reduction between treatments was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatments in PD, CAL, RH, RW, and HKT. However, the mean TKT gain was 0.7 mm for the ADM group and 0.2 mm for the CPF group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that both techniques could provide significant root coverage in Class I gingival recessions; however, a greater keratinized tissue thickness can be expected with ADM.     

Coronally advanced flap for the treatment of buccal gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative. A split-mouth study

BACKGROUND: The coronally advanced flap (CAF) is a predictable method for achieving root coverage in buccal gingival recessions. The use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has already been tested in treating intrabony defects. No clinical comparative study has been published evaluating the CAF in combination with EMD in treating buccal gingival recessions. METHODS: This split-mouth study was performed to assess the efficacy of EMD to improve the results of a root coverage procedure. Fourteen pairs of Miller Class I and II bilateral comparable defects were selected in 12 patients. In each patient, one site was randomly assigned to the test group and the contralateral site to the control group. The treatment consisted of a CAF procedure with (test) or without (control) EMD. Gingival recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and extension of keratinized tissue (KT) were recorded at baseline and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: The average initial REC was 3.71 mm (SD +/- 1.68) for the test group, and 3.50 mm (SD +/- 1.56) for the control group. The 2 groups were statistically homogeneous. The mean root coverage was 3.36 mm (SD +/- 1.55), corresponding to a value of 91.2% for the test group, and 2.71 mm (SD +/- 1.20), equal to 80.9% for the control group. The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. The mean CAL gain was 3.57 mm (SD +/- 1.55) for the test group and 2.79 mm (SD +/- 1.19) for the control group. No changes of PD and KT were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that EMD does not seem to significantly improve the clinical outcomes of gingival recession treated by means of CAF, even though the test group showed slightly better results in terms of root coverage and CAL. Further studies with a larger number of teeth and higher statistical power are needed to support this conclusion.     

Treatment of gingival recession defects using coronally advanced flap with a porcine collagen matrix compared to coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background: Connective tissue graft (CTG) plus coronally advanced flap (CAF) is the reference therapy for root coverage. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the use of a porcine collagen matrix (PCM) plus CAF as an alternative to CTG+CAF for the treatment of gingival recessions (REC), in a prospective randomized, controlled clinical trial. Methods: Eighteen adult patients participated in this study. The patients presented 22 single Miller's Class I or II REC, randomly assigned to the test (PCM+CAF) or control (CTG+CAF) group. REC, probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and width of keratinized tissue (KG) were evaluated at 12 months. In addition, the gingival thickness (GT) was measured 1mm apical to the bottom of the sulcus. Results: At 12 months, mean REC was 0.23 mm for test sites and 0.09 mm for control sites (P <0.01), whereas percentage of root coverage was 94.32% and 96.97%, respectively. CAL gain was 2.41 mm in test sites and 2.95 mm in control sites (P <0.01). KG gain was 1.23 mm in the test group and 1.27 mm in the control group (P <0.01). In test sites, GT changed from 0.82 to 1.82 mm, and in control sites, from 0.86 to 2.09 mm (P <0.01). Conclusions: Within the limits of the study, both treatment procedures resulted in significant reduction in REC at 12 months. No statistically significant differences were found between PCM+CAF and CTG+CAF with regard to any clinical parameter. The collagen matrix represents a possible alternative to CTG.     

Harvesting technique using a mucotome and modified surgical procedure for root coverage with enamel matrix derivatives with and without a connective tissue graft

The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the coverage of gingival recession defects with enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) with or without a connective tissue graft (CTG). Twenty-five patients (16 female, 9 male) from 16 to 58 years of age (mean: 32.2; SD: 11.2) with 92 gingival recessions (Miller Class I and II) and with at least 4.0 mm of clinical attachment loss were treated with a modified surgical technique for root coverage by CTG with EMD (45 recession defects) or EMD only (47 recession defects). Vertical recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level, dehiscence depth, width of keratinized gingiva (vertical), and recession coverage were recorded before surgery (baseline) and at 12 and 24 months. The average presurgical recession depth was 4.4 mm (SD: 1.3) with EMD and CTG versus 3.2 mm (SD: 1.1) with EMD only. Both treatment modalities led to a significant decrease in recession and a gain in attachment. Mean root coverage 12 months postoperatively was 92.7% (SD: 13.5) (EMD and CTG) versus 96.3% (SD: 11.5) (EMD only). Compared to the mean root coverage of recession after 24 months, the change was not significant. The results confirmed that the applied modified surgical techniques are safe and predictable, with better clinical outcomes at the donor and recipient sites.     

Evaluation of Recession Defects Treated With Coronally Advanced Flaps and Either Recombinant Human Platelet‐Derived Growth Factor‐BB Plus β‐Tricalcium Phosphate or Connective Tissue: Comparison of Clinical Parameters at 5 Years

Background: In a previously reported split‐mouth, randomized controlled trial, Miller Class II gingival recession defects were treated with either a connective tissue graft (CTG) (control) or recombinant human platelet‐derived growth factor‐BB + β‐tricalcium phosphate (test), both in combination with a coronally advanced flap (CAF). At 6 months, multiple outcome measures were examined. The purpose of the current study is to examine the major efficacy parameters at 5 years. Methods: Twenty of the original 30 patients were available for follow‐up 5 years after the original surgery. Outcomes examined were recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), height of keratinized tissue (wKT), and percentage of root coverage. Within‐ and across‐treatment group results at 6 months and 5 years were compared with original baseline values. Results: At 5 years, all quantitative parameters for both treatment protocols showed statistically significant improvements over baseline. The primary outcome parameter, change in recession depth at 5 years, demonstrated statistically significant improvements in recession over baseline, although intergroup comparisons favored the control group at both 6 months and 5 years. At 5 years, intergroup comparisons also favored the test group for percentage root coverage and change in wKT, whereas no statistically significant intergroup differences were seen for 100% root coverage and changes to CAL. Conclusions: In the present 5‐year investigation, treatment with either test or control treatments for Miller Class II recession defects appear to lead to stable, clinically effective results, although CTG + CAF resulted in greater reductions in recession, greater percentage of root coverage, and increased wKT.     

Gingival recession treatment: guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane versus connective tissue graft

BACKGROUND: Gingival recession represents a significant concern for patients and a therapeutic problem for clinicians. Several techniques have been proposed to achieve root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure in comparison to connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession defects. METHODS: Twelve patients, each contributing a pair of Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recessions, were treated. In each patient one randomly chosen defect received a poly(lactic acid)-based bioabsorbable membrane, while the paired defect received a CTG. Clinical recordings included oral hygiene standards and gingival health, recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KT). RESULTS: Mean RD statistically significantly decreased from 2.5 mm presurgery to 0.5 mm with GTR (81% root coverage), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with CTG (96% root coverage), at 6 months postsurgery. Prevalence of complete root coverage was 58% for the GTR group and 83% for the CTG group. Mean CAL gain was 2.0 mm for the GTR group and 2.2 mm for the CTG group. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed for changes in RD, RW, PD, CAL, and KT. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of human gingival recession defects by means of either GTR or CTG results in clinically and statistically significant improvement of the soft tissue conditions of the defect when pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared. Although differences between CTG and GTR in mean root coverage and prevalence of complete coverage consistently favored the CTG procedure, the differences in measurements were not statistically significant.     

Connective tissue graft plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: a randomized-controlled clinical trial

Background: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recession, associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a connective tissue graft (CTG) alone, or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CTG+R).
Materials and Methods: Forty patients presenting Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL) and cervical lesion height (CLH) coverage were measured at baseline and 45 days, and 2, 3 and 6 months after treatment.
Results: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, RGR and CAL, after 6 months. The percentages of CLH covered were 74.88 ± 8.66% for CTG and 70.76 ± 9.81% for CTG+R ( p >0.05). The estimated root coverage was 91.91 ± 17.76% for CTG and 88.64 ± 11.9% for CTG+R ( p >0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage. The presence of the glass ionomer restoration may not prevent the root coverage achieved by CTG.     

Cervical restoration and the amount of soft tissue coverage achieved by coronally advanced flap: A 2-year follow-up randomized-controlled clinical trial

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year follow-up success of the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CAF+R).
Material and Methods: Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects received either CAF or CAF+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL) and cervical lesion height (CLH) coverage were measured at the baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after the treatment.
Results: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, RGR and CAL, after 2 years. The percentages of CLH covered were 51.57 ± 17.2% for CAF+R and 53.87 ± 12.6% for CAF ( p >0.05). The estimated root coverage was 80.37 ± 25.44% for CAF+R and 83.46 ± 20.79% for CAF ( p >0.05).
Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide acceptable soft tissue coverage after 2 years, with no significant differences between the two approaches.     

Comparative study of two root coverage procedures: a 24-month follow-up multicenter study

BACKGROUND: Treatment alternatives to cover exposed root surfaces include free grafts, pedicle flaps, and barrier membranes. This 24-month follow-up study clinically evaluated the long-term effect of a coronally advanced flap procedure with the additional use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to treat gingival recession versus the subpedicle connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure. METHODS: Miller Class I or II buccal recession-type defects in the anterior teeth or premolars in 65 patients (28 in EMD and 37 in CTG groups) were treated in several centers. At baseline and 12 and 24 months post-treatment, vertical recession defect (VRD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), and probing depth (PD) were recorded, and the percentage of root coverage (PRC) of the original defect was calculated. Student t test, analysis of variance, and analysis of covariance were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: At 12- and 24-month evaluations, PRC was 73.2% (SD=15.58%) and 76.9% (SD=16.77%) in the EMD group and 86.8% (SD=12.48%) and 84.3% (SD=13.32%) in the CTG group, respectively (P<0.001). Differences between groups were statistically significant (P=0.002). Baseline HKT was 1.07 mm (SD=0.66 mm) in the EMD group and 1.65 mm (SD=0.92 mm) in the CTG group. At 12 and 24 months, values were 1.75 mm (SD=0.59 mm) and 2.25 mm (SD=0.52 mm) in the EMD group and 4.24 mm (SD=0.89 mm) and 4.05 mm (SD=0.94 mm) in the CTG group, respectively. Differences in HKT were statistically significant within (EMD: P<0.001; CTG: P=0.017) and between (P<0.001) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments proved clinically successful. CTG treatment showed a higher percentage of root coverage and HKT increase. EMD is a valuable, long-term effective treatment alternative to achieve root coverage together with an increase in HKT.     

The Adjunctive Effect of Platelet‐Rich Fibrin to Connective Tissue Graft in the Treatment of Buccal Recession Defects: Results of a Randomized,Parallel‐Group Controlled Trial

Background: Platelet‐rich fibrin (PRF) is an autologous preparation that has encouraging effects in healing and regeneration. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of coronally advanced flap (CAF) + connective tissue graft (CTG) + PRF in Miller Class I and II recession treatment compared to CAF + CTG. Methods: Forty patients were treated surgically with either CAF + CTG + PRF (test group) or CAF + CTG (control group). Clinical parameters of plaque index, gingival index, vertical recession (VR), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), horizontal recession (HR), mucogingival junction localization, and tissue thickness (TT) were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Root coverage (RC), complete RC (CRC), attachment gain (AG), and keratinized tissue change (KTC) were also calculated. Results: All individuals completed the entire study period. At baseline, mean VR, HR, CAL, KTW, and TT values were similar (P >0.05). In both groups, all parameters showed significant improvement after treatment (P <0.001), and except TT (P <0.05), no intergroup difference was observed at 6 months after surgery. The amount of RC and AG, but not KTC and CRC, was higher in the PRF‐applied group (P <0.05). Conclusions: According to the results, the addition of PRF did not further develop the outcomes of CAF + CTG treatment except increasing the TT. However, this single trial is not sufficient to advocate the true clinical effect of PRF on recession treatment with CAF + CTG, and additional trials are needed.     

Root coverage outcome may be affected by heavy smoking: a 2-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Although subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) has been reported to be a predictable procedure for root coverage, the impact of smoking on the long-term outcome of periodontal plastic surgery is unclear. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of smoking, on a long-term basis, on the stability of gingival tissue following CTG treatment of gingival recession. METHODS: Twenty-two defects were treated by CTG in canine and premolar Miller Class I and II gingival recessions (11 smokers and 11 non-smokers). The following clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery: plaque and gingival indexes, extension of gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival thickness. Individuals smoking > or =20 cigarettes/day for > or =5 years were considered smokers. RESULTS: Data analysis demonstrated that both groups presented similar plaque and gingival indexes (P >0.05), and an intragroup analysis showed that CTG was able to promote root coverage and increase gingival thickness in both groups over time (P <0.05). However, at 24 months postoperatively, statistical analysis showed that smokers presented poorer outcomes with regard to PD, GR, and CAL (P <0.05); in addition, a more satisfactory stabilization of the gingival tissue was found in the non-smoker group. CONCLUSION: Smoking may represent a challenge to root coverage outcome for CTG because smoking significantly affected the stability of gingival tissue over time.     

Coronally positioned flap plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a coronally advanced flap alone (CAF) or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CAF+R). METHODS: Nineteen subjects with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions associated with non-carious cervical lesions were selected. The recessions were assigned randomly to receive CAF or CAF+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL), non-carious cervical lesion height (CLH), and dentin sensitivity (DS) were measured at baseline; 45 days; and 2, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Keratinized tissue width (KTW) and keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) were measured at baseline and 6 months. The height of the non-carious cervical lesion located on the root and crown were estimated, allowing calculation of root coverage. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant for BOP, PD, RGR, CAL, KTW, and KTT after 6 months. The percentages of CLH covered were 56.14% +/- 11.74% for CAF+R and 59.78% +/- 11.11% for CAF (P >0.05). The root and crown surfaces affected by the non-carious cervical lesion were 1.67 +/- 0.31 mm and 0.96 +/- 0.29 mm, respectively, for CAF+R and 1.59 +/- 0.37 mm and 1.01 +/- 0.33 mm, respectively, for CAF. The estimated root coverage was 88.02% +/- 19.45% for CAF+R and 97.48% +/- 15.36% for CAF (P >0.05). CAF+R reduced DS significantly compared to CAF (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures provided similar soft tissue coverage after 6 months. Despite the fact that a greater reduction in DS was observed after CAF+R, longitudinal observations are necessary to confirm these results.     

Subepithelial connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial

The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical outcomes of a connective tissue graft (CTG) alone or in combination with enamel matrix derivative (CTG + EMD) in the treatment of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions. The 56 selected defects were evaluated for probing depth, recession depth, keratinized tissue width, and probing attachment level, and were measured at baseline and 12 months after treatment. The mean recession reduction was 3.9 ± 0.8 mm for EMD-treated sites (test) and 3.6 ± 1.5 mm for the control group (P = .22), corresponding to a mean root coverage of 90% and 80% for test and control groups, respectively (P = .05). Complete root coverage was obtained in 62% of test sites compared to 47% in the control group (P = .27). Both procedures provided good soft tissue coverage. The better results of the test group did not achieve a statistically significant level.     

Split-mouth evaluation of connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of isolated gingival recession defects in dogs

Objectives

The potential additive effect of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) for recession coverage is still controversially discussed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to histologically evaluate the healing of gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) and CTG with or without EMD in dogs.

Materials and methods

Gingival recession defects (5 mm wide and 7 mm deep) were surgically created on the labial side of bilateral maxillary canines in 7 dogs. After 8 weeks of plaque accumulation and subsequent 2 weeks of chemical plaque control, the 14 chronic defects were randomized to receive either CAF with CTG (CAF/CTG) or CAF with CTG and EMD (CAF/CTG/EMD). The animals were sacrificed 10 weeks after reconstructive surgery for histologic evaluation.

Results

Treatment with CAF/CTG/EMD demonstrated statistically significantly better results in terms of probing pocket depth reduction (P < 0.05) and clinical attachment level gain (P < 0.001). The length of the epithelium was statistically significantly shorter in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than in the CAF/CTG group (1.00 ± 0.75 mm vs. 2.38 ± 1.48 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). Cementum formation was statistically significantly greater in the CAF/CTG/EMD group than following treatment with the CAF/CTG group (3.20 ± 0.89 mm vs. 1.88 ± 1.58 mm, respectively, P < 0.01). The CAF/CTG/EMD group showed statistically significantly greater complete periodontal regeneration (i.e., new cementum, new periodontal ligament, and new bone) than treatment with CAF/CTG (0.54 ± 0.73 mm vs. 0.07 ± 0.27 mm, respectively, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Within their limits, the present findings indicate that the additional use of EMD in conjunction with CAF + CTG favors periodontal regeneration in gingival recession defects.

Clinical relevance

The present findings support the use of EMD combined with CTG and CAF for promoting periodontal regeneration in isolated gingival recession defects.

     

The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the coronally advanced flap root coverage procedure: a pilot human trial

BACKGROUND: Coronally advanced flap (CAF) has been shown to effectively treat gingival recession. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), containing autologous growth factors, has been shown to promote soft tissue healing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of PRP in combination with CAF. METHODS: Twenty-four systemically healthy patients participated in this study. A single Miller's Class I buccal recession defect per patient was treated. These patients were randomly assigned into CAF or PRP + CAF groups. Clinical parameters included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), wound healing index (WHI), and gingival index (GI). PRP was prepared from whole blood drawn prior to surgery and applied to root surfaces. Patients were followed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study. The RD at 24 weeks was significantly reduced from 2.9 +/- 0.5 to 0.5 +/- 0.6 mm in the CAF group (P < 0.05) and from 2.8 +/- 0.2 to 0.5 +/- 0.7 mm in the PRP + CAF group (P < 0.05). The mean root coverage was 83.5% +/- 21.8% in the CAF group and 81.0% +/- 28.7% in the CAF + PRP group (P > 0.05). Fourteen out of 23 patients (60.9%) experienced 100% root coverage at the 24-week postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this pilot study, the application of PRP in CAF root coverage procedure provides no clinically measurable enhancements on the final therapeutic outcomes of CAF in Miller's Class I recession defects.     

Split-mouth comparison of a coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for coverage of multiple gingival recession defects: 6- and 24-month follow-up

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) improves clinical results of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects. Ten patients presenting at least two adjacent buccal gingival recession defects affecting symmetric teeth on both sides of the maxilla were included in this study. Each set of multiple recession defects was assigned randomly to the test or control group. A bilateral simultaneous CAF procedure with vertical releasing incisions, with the adjunct of EMD for test sites, was performed. Clinical measurements (recession length, keratinized tissue, probing depth, and clinical attachment level) were assessed at baseline and 6 and 24 months after surgery by a blinded examiner. At the 6-month evaluation, both treatment procedures displayed good results with significant root coverage gain (CAF, 80.7% ± 20%; CAF + EMD, 82.8% ± 14%). A similar amount of relapse was noted at the 24-month evaluation when compared with the 6-month results (CAF, 71.0% ± 22%; CAF + EMD, 74.8% ± 16%). The use of EMD does not seem to significantly improve the results of the CAF procedure for root coverage in treatment of multiple recessions.     

The influence of anatomical features on the outcome of gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap and enamel matrix derivative: a 1-year prospective study

BACKGROUND: Coronally advanced flap (CAF) is one of the most effective treatments of Miller Class I and II recessions. Even if excellent outcomes are reported in the literature, complete root coverage is not always predictable, since many surgical and host-related factors may affect the percentage of root coverage obtained. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate if some anatomical features such as tissue thickness, papillae height and width, recession depth, and vestibular bone height may influence defect coverage of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions treated with CAF in combination with enamel matrix derivative (EMD). METHODS: Thirty healthy, non-smoking patients (13 men and 17 women; mean age 32.8 +/- 6.2 years) were enrolled. Each patient was treated for one single recession using a CAF with the adjunct of EMD. Clinical parameters at baseline and 6 and 12 months were recorded and compared by using paired Student t test. Data were subdivided in two groups according to the baseline recession depth (REC): REC < 4 mm (group 1) and REC > or = 4 mm (group 2). The relation between the anatomical parameters (papilla height, papilla width, crestal bone height, and flap thickness) and percent of root coverage was evaluated by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: At 12 months, 91.7% of root coverage was obtained with a mean attachment gain of 3.23 mm. Better results in terms of percentage of root coverage were obtained when the baseline REC was < 4 mm compared to defects > or = 4 mm (96.5% versus 83.5%). Flap thickness was positively correlated to the percentage of root coverage. For gingival recessions > or = 4 mm, 100% root coverage was achieved only when tissue thickness was > or = 1 mm. Root coverage percentage was slightly related to papilla width in both groups, while it was associated with papilla height only in group 1 (P = 0.004). Only in patients in group 1 was the height of bone on the vestibular side related to the percentage of root coverage obtained (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that baseline recession depth and flap thickness may influence the outcome of marginal tissue recession therapy with CAF plus EMD at 12 months. There is not a clear relation between root coverage and other anatomical features as papilla width, papilla height, and the amount of bone on the vestibular side.