Wound-healing agents for palatal donor area: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to assess the efficacy of different wound-healing agents for palatal donor area management after soft tissue graft harvesting. METHODS: Electronic searches in six databases were conducted for publications up to October 2023. Studies with data from patients undergoing therapeutic approaches using agents for palatal healing after gingival graft harvesting were included. Data about postoperative pain, wound-healing and postoperative complications reported for each agent were extracted. Three different tools were used for the risk of bias within studies evaluation (Murad tool for case series and case report, RoB 2.0 tool for randomized studies and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies). A Bayesian random effects NMA was conducted for postoperative pain levels and wound healing. RESULTS: Eighty-four publications were included in the systematic review (qualitative analysis), with 14 of these subjected to NMA (quantitative analysis). The summarized results from the qualitative and quantitative analysis showed that all wound-healing agents evaluated promoted better pain control and wound healing compared to spontaneous healing and hemostatic sponges alone. The NMA outcomes reveal that leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) was the most effective agent in reducing postoperative pain in all analyzed periods. Moreover, the L-PRF seems to accelerate wound healing and reduce postoperative complications compared to other agents. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the L-PRF was the most effective agent in reducing postoperative pain, accelerating wound healing and reducing postoperative complications after harvesting soft tissue grafts from the palatal area.

Root coverage with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized trial.

This study aimed to compare the use of connective tissue grafts (CTG) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) associated with the tunnel technique (TT) for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions (GR). Fourteen patients with multiple bilateral GR [type 1 recession (RT 1)] in the maxillary incisors, canines, and/or premolars were included. The TT was performed on both sides (split-mouth model); CTG (36 GR) was used on one side, and on the other, PRF (36 GR) was used. Clinical parameters, including recession depth (RD), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized gingiva thickness/width (GT/KTW), were obtained at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 16 months. Lower RD (0.81 ± 0.68 vs. 1.23 ± 0.71 mm) and CAL (2.54 ± 0.63 vs. 2.73 ± 0.82 mm) were observed for CTG compared to PRF after 16 months. Higher GT was obtained for CTG compared to PRF after 3 (1.81 ± 0.56 vs 1.43 ± 0.47 mm) and 6 months (1.67 ± 0.61 vs. 1.38 ± 0.55 mm, p < 0.05). The recession coverage (RC) was higher for CTG (55.42% ± 37.14) in comparison to PRF (29.53% ± 34.08) after 16 months (p < 0.05). Similarly, CTG presented a more complete coverage of the recession (15; 41.66%) than PRF (9; 24.32%). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery time, postoperative pain, or healing patterns. Greater esthetic satisfaction was obtained with CTG. It was concluded that CTG combined with TT showed clinical and esthetic results superior to those of PRF in multiple GR treatments.

Digital planning and guided dual technique in esthetic crown lengthening: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to compare the guided dual technique with the conventional technique in esthetic crown lengthening (ECL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The trial registration number is NCT04922086. Twenty-four participants diagnosed with altered passive eruption (APE) type I subcategory B were selected and allocated into two groups. In the control group (n = 12), the ECL procedure was planned by clinical examination and transgingival probing; in the test group (n = 12), the ECL procedure was carried out using digital planning and a double guide. Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, immediately after the intervention (IAI), and at 4, 8, and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The clinical crown length (CCL) mean at baseline was 8.09 mm (± 0.77) and increased significantly to 9.92 mm (± 0.62) IAI, with minimal significant reduction after 12 months (9.47 mm [± 0.60]) in the control group. Similarly, in the test group, the mean CCL at baseline was 8.04 mm (± 0.69) and increased significantly to 9.94 mm (± 0.57) IAI, with minimal reduction after 12 months (9.35 mm [± 0.80]). No differences were found between the mean CCL determined in the digital planning and after 12 months. No correlation was found between gingival thickness and gingival margin stability. High esthetic satisfaction was demonstrated by participants/specialists without differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the guided dual technique was as effective as the conventional technique for treatment of APE, with stable results after 12 months of follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The guided dual technique aims to transfer both the gingival and bone resection planned position to facilitate the ECL surgical procedure and increase treatment predictability.

Root coverage with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized trial

Abstract: This study aimed to compare the use of connective tissue grafts (CTG) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) associated with the tunnel technique (TT) for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions (GR). Fourteen patients with multiple bilateral GR [type 1 recession (RT 1)] in the maxillary incisors, canines, and/or premolars were included. The TT was performed on both sides (split-mouth model); CTG (36 GR) was used on one side, and on the other, PRF (36 GR) was used. Clinical parameters, including recession depth (RD), probing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized gingiva thickness/width (GT/KTW), were obtained at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 16 months. Lower RD (0.81 ± 0.68 vs. 1.23 ± 0.71 mm) and CAL (2.54 ± 0.63 vs. 2.73 ± 0.82 mm) were observed for CTG compared to PRF after 16 months. Higher GT was obtained for CTG compared to PRF after 3 (1.81 ± 0.56 vs 1.43 ± 0.47 mm) and 6 months (1.67 ± 0.61 vs. 1.38 ± 0.55 mm, p < 0.05). The recession coverage (RC) was higher for CTG (55.42% ± 37.14) in comparison to PRF (29.53% ± 34.08) after 16 months (p < 0.05). Similarly, CTG presented a more complete coverage of the recession (15; 41.66%) than PRF (9; 24.32%). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery time, postoperative pain, or healing patterns. Greater esthetic satisfaction was obtained with CTG. It was concluded that CTG combined with TT showed clinical and esthetic results superior to those of PRF in multiple GR treatments.