Xenogenous Collagen Matrix and/or Enamel Matrix Derivative for Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Part II: Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Gingival recession (GR) might be associated with patient discomfort due to cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH) and esthetic dissatisfaction. The aim is to evaluate the effect of root coverage procedure with a xenogenous collagen matrix (CM) and/or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in combination with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) on CDH, esthetics, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients with GR. METHODS: Sixty-eight participants with single Miller Class I/II GRs were treated with CAF (n = 17), CAF + CM (n = 17), CAF + EMD (n = 17), and CAF + CM + EMD (n = 17). CDH was assessed by evaporative stimuli using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a Schiff scale. Esthetics outcome was assessed with VAS and the Questionnaire of Oral Esthetic Satisfaction. Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used to assess OHRQoL. All parameters were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months. RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed statistically significant reduction in CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction with no intergroup significant differences (P >0.05). The impact of oral health on QoL after 6 months was significant for CAF + CM, CAF + EMD, and CAF + CM + EMD (P <0.05). Total OHIP-14 score and psychologic discomfort, psychologic disability, social disability, and handicap dimensions showed negative correlation with esthetics. OHIP-14 physical pain dimension had positive correlation with CDH (P <0.05). OHIP-14 showed no correlation with percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, or keratinized tissue thickness (P >0.05). CONCLUSION: Root coverage procedures improve patient OHRQoL by impacting on a wide range of dimensions, perceived after reduction of CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction of patients with GRs treated with CAF + CM, CAF + EMD, and CAF + CM + EMD.

Xenogenous Collagen Matrix and/or Enamel Matrix Derivative for Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Part I: Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Considering xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) and enamel matrix derivative (EMD) characteristics, it is suggested that their combination could promote superior clinical outcomes in root coverage procedures. Thus, the aim of this parallel, double-masked, dual-center, randomized clinical trial is to evaluate clinical outcomes after treatment of localized gingival recession (GR) by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with CM and/or EMD. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients presenting one Miller Class I or II GRs were randomly assigned to receive either CAF (n = 17); CAF + CM (n = 17); CAF + EMD (n = 17), or CAF + CM + EMD (n = 17). Recession height, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width and thickness were measured at baseline and 90 days and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: The obtained root coverage was 68.04% ± 24.11% for CAF; 87.20% ± 15.01% for CAF + CM; 88.77% ± 20.66% for CAF + EMD; and 91.59% ± 11.08% for CAF + CM + EMD after 6 months. Groups that received biomaterials showed greater values (P <0.05). Complete root coverage (CRC) for CAF + EMD was 70.59%, significantly superior to CAF alone (23.53%); CAF + CM (52.94%), and CAF + CM + EMD (51.47%) (P <0.05). Keratinized tissue thickness gain was significant only in CM-treated groups (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The three approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage. EMD provides highest levels of CRC; however, the addition of CM increases gingival thickness. The combination approach does not seem justified.