medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2015, Number 4

<< Back

Rev Odont Mex 2015; 19 (4)

Clinical comparison of coronary displaced flap and sub-epithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix protein derivative for gingival recession coverage. Clinical case presentation

Vargas CAP, Mendoza EBI, Borges YSA

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page: 263-272
PDF size: 548.61 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The present article described a clinical case where it was assessed whether aggregation of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to the procedure of coronary-advanced flap with sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (CAF + SCTG) would improve the amount of root coverage in Miller’s class I and II gingival recessions when compared to the same isolated procedure in a patient suffering multiple gingival recessions, in a 6 month time-span. Twelve gingival recessions were included in the study: six treated with (CAF + SCTG + EMD) and six treated with (CAF + SCTG) in different quadrants. At beginning of procedure as well as six months later, the following clinical parameters were measured: gingival recession depth (RD), depth to probing (PD), clinical insertion level (CIL) and width of keratinized tissue (KT) in apex-coronary direction. A p ‹ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results established that after a six month procedure CAF + SCTG + EMD and CAF + SCTG produced significant root coverage, respective averages were 2.83 ± 1.16 mm (p = 0.001) and 2.50 ± 0.83 mm (p = .002). All gingival recessions treated with EMD experienced 100% root coverage, sites treated with CAF + SCTG + EMD exhibited coverage of only 65.3%. When comparing results at six months, better results were observed with CAF + SCTG + EMD with respect to clinical insertion level (p = .02) and root coverage (p = .06). Nevertheless, neither the difference of clinical level insertion nor the gain in root coverage resulted significant. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between PD and KT. Conclusion: The present clinical case did not show additional benefits when EMD were aggregated to the CAF + SCTG in the coverage of multiple Miller’s class I and class II gingival recessions.


REFERENCES

  1. American Academy of Periodontology. Glossary of periodontal terms. 3rd ed. Chicago: The American Academy of Periodontology; 1992. p. 44.

  2. Rees JS, Addy M. A cross-sectional study of dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29 (11): 997-1003.

  3. Kassab MM, Badawi H, Dentino AR. Treatment of gingival recession. Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54 (1): 129-140.

  4. Bignozzi I, Crea A, Capri D, Littaru C, lajolo C et al. Root caries: a periodontal perspective. J Periodontal Res. 2014; 49 (2): 143-163.

  5. Serino G, Wennström JL, Lindhe J, Eneroth L. The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession in subjects with a high standard of oral hygiene. J Clin Periodontol. 1994; 21 (1): 57-63.

  6. Löe H, Anerud A, Boysen H. The natural history of periodontal disease in man: prevalence, severity, and extent of gingival recession. J Periodontol. 1992; 63 (6): 489-495.

  7. Wennström J, Zucchelli G, PiniPrato G. Terapia mucogingival-cirugía plástica periodontal. En: Lindhe J, Lang N, Karring T, editores. Periodontología clínica e implantología odontológica. 5a ed. México, D.F.: Médica Panamericana; 2009. pp. 955-958.

  8. Cairo F, Nieri M, Pagliaro U. Efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41 (Suppl. 15): S44-S62.

  9. Graziani F, Gennai S, Roldan S, Discepoli N, Buti J, Madianos P et al. Efficacy of periodontal plastic procedures in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41 (Suppl. 15): S63-S76.

  10. Miller PD. A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 1985; 5 (2): 8-13.

  11. Allen AL. Use of the supraperiosteal envelope in soft tissue grafting for root coverage. I. Rationale and technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994; 14 (3): 216-227.

  12. Zucchelli G, De Sanctis M. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands. J Periodontol. 2000; 71 (9): 1506-1514.

  13. Langer B, Langer L. Subepithelial connective tissue graft technique for root coverage. J Periodontol. 1985; 37 (2): 243-264.

  14. Zabalegui I, Sicilia A, Cambra J, Gil J, Sanz M. Treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions with the tunnel subepithelial connective tissue graft: a clinical report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999; 19 (2): 199-206.

  15. Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Nieri M. Treatment of gingival recession with coronally advanced flap procedures: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008; 35 (Suppl. 8): 136-162.

  16. Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent. 2008; 36 (9): 659-671.

  17. Cochran DL, Jones A, Heijl L, Mellonig JT, Schoolfield J, King GN. Periodontal regeneration with a combination of enamel matrix proteins and autogenous bone grafting. J Periodontol. 2003; 74 (9): 1269-1281.

  18. Heijl L, Sculean A. Application of enamel matrix proteins in intrabony defects: a biology-based regenerative treatment. En: Sculean A, editors. Periodontal regenerative therapy. Berlin: Quintessence Publishing; 2010. pp. 90-116.

  19. Gestrelius S, Andersson C, Johansson AC, Perssons E, Bording A, Rydhag L et al. Formulation of enamel matrix derivative for surface coating. Kinetics and cell colonization. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24 (9): 678-684.

  20. Heijl L. Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in one human experimental defect. A case report. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24 (9): 693-696.

  21. Carnio J, Camargo PM, Kenney EB, Schenk RK. Histological evaluation of 4 cases of root coverage following a connective tissue graft combined with an enamel matrix derivative preparation. J Periodontol. 2002; 73 (12): 1534-1543.

  22. Pilloni A, Paolantonio M, Camargo PM. Root coverage with a coronally positioned flap used in combination with enamel matrix derivate: 18 month clinical evaluation. J Periodontol. 2006; 77 (12): 2031-2039.

  23. Tonetti MS, Jepsen S. Clinical efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures: consensus report of group 2 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41 (Suppl. 15): S36-S43.

  24. Hagewald S, Spahr A, Rompola E, Haller B, Heijl L, Bernimoulin JP. Comparative study of Emdogain and coronally advanced flap technique in the treatment of human gingival recessions. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29 (1): 35-41.

  25. McGuire MK, Nunn M. Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative comparison of clinical parameters. J Periodontol. 2003; 74 (8): 1110-1125.

  26. Rasperini G, Roccuzzo M, Francetti L, Acunzo R, Consonni D, Silvestri M. Subepithelial connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011; 31 (2): 133-139.

  27. Henriques PS, Pelegrine AA, Nogueira AA, Borghi MM. Application of subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a split-mouth randomized study. J Oral Sci. 2010; 52 (3): 463-471.

  28. Sato S, Yamada K, Kato T, Haryu K, Ito K. Treatment of Miller class III recessions with enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) in combination with subepithelial connective tissue grafting. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2006; 26 (1): 71-77.

  29. Roman A, Soanca A, Kasaj A, Stratul SI. Subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recessions: a controlled randomized clinical trial. J Periodont Res. 2013; 48 (5): 563-572.

  30. Zucchelli G. Mucogingival esthetic surgery. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Pub.; 2012. p. 514.

  31. Susuki S, Nagano T, Yamakoxhi Y. Enamel matrix derivate gel stimulates signal transduction of BMP and TGF-(beta). J Dent Res. 2005; 84 (6): 510-514.

  32. Heng NH, N’Guessan PD, Kleber BM, Bernimoulin JP, Pischon N. Enamel matrix derivative induces connective tissue growth factor expression in human osteoblastic cells. J Periodontol. 2007; 78 (12): 2369-2379.

  33. Rasperini G, Silvestri M, Schenk RK, Nevins ML. Clinical and histologic evaluation of human gingival recession treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft and enamel matrix derivate (Emdogain): a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000; 20 (3): 269-275.

  34. Alkan EA, Parlar A. Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment adjacent gingival recessions: a pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33 (5): 619-625.

  35. Berlucchi I, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Weinstein RL. Enamel matrix proteins (Emdogain) in combination with coronally advanced flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of shallow gingival recessions. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2002; 22 (6): 583-593.

  36. Aroca S, Keglevich T, Nikolidakis D, Gera I, Nagy K, Azzi R et al. Treatment of class III multiple gingival recessions: a randomized-clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37 (1): 88-97.

  37. Cueva MA, Boltchi FE, Hallmon WW, Nunn ME, Rivera-Hidalgo F, Rees T. A comparative study of coronally advanced flaps with and without the addition of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of marginal tissue recession. J Periodontol. 2004; 75 (7): 949-956.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com