Telf. 963 39 50 37 · formaciofla@uv.es

Blog de Cirugía e Implantología Oral

26 sep 2016

Surgical treatment of localized gingival recessions using coronally advanced flaps with or without subepithelial connective tissue graft

Bellver-Fernández R, Martínez-Rodriguez A-M, Gioia-Palavecino C, Caffesse R-G, Peñarrocha M. Surgical treatment of localized gingival recessions using coronally advanced flaps with or without subepithelial connective tissue graft. Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal. 2016; 21(2):e222-e228.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
A coronally advanced flap with subepithelial connective tissue graft is the gold standard surgical treatment of gingival recessions, since it offers a higher probability of achieving complete root coverage compared with other techniques. However, optimum short- and middle-term clinical results have also been obtained with coronally advanced flaps alone. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the results obtained by the surgical treatment of localized gingival recessions using coronally advanced flaps with or without subepithelial connective tissue graft.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
The reduction of recession height was assessed, together with the gain in gingival attachment apical to the recession, and total reduction of recession, in a comparative study of two techniques. Twenty-two gingival recessions were operated upon: 13 in the control group (coronally advanced flap) and 9 in the test group (coronally advanced flap associated to subepithelial connective tissue graft).

RESULTS:
After 18 months, the mean reduction of recession height was 2.2 ± 0.8 mm in the control group and 2.3 ± 0.7 mm in the test group, with a mean gain in gingival attachment of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm and 2.3 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. In percentage terms, the mean reduction of recession height was 84.6 ± 19.6% in the control group and 81.7 ± 17.8% in the test group, with a mean gain in gingival attachment of 20.5 ± 37.4% and 184.4 ± 135.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:
Significant reduction of gingival recession was achieved with both techniques, though the mean gain in gingival attachment (in mm and as a %) was greater in test group.

Pubmed


PDF