Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft (AXDM) compared to connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating multiple gingival recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared AXDM and CTG. The selected studies were subjected to bias risk assessment, data extraction, and meta-analyses. Parameters such as gingival recession height, width, mean percentage of root coverage, and complete root coverage were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 146 patients were included. The meta-analyses indicated that CTG was statistically superior to AXDM in reducing gingival recession height at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.104 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.180-0.028, p = 0.008) and width at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.285 mm, 95% CI: -0.541-0.030, p = 0.029). CTG also demonstrated a significantly higher mean percentage of root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (difference in means: -2.761 mm, 95% CI: -4.932-0.590, p = 0.013) and a higher percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (odds Ratio [OR]: 0.598, 95% CI: 0.4-0.892, p = 0.012) compared to AXDM. However, there was no significant difference in the number of teeth with complete root coverage between CTG and AXDM (OR: 1.610, 95% CI: 0.983-2.636, p = 0.058) and aesthetic outcomes (mean difference: 0.148, 95% CI: -0.277-0.573, p = 0.494). CONCLUSIONS: CTG is more effective than AXDM in treating multiple gingival recessions. This is evidenced by significant reductions in gingival recession height and width, a higher mean percentage of root coverage, and a greater percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In some clinical situations an alternative to CTG is required for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. AXDM, despite presenting clinical outcomes that are not as satisfactory as CTG, can be used for this purpose.

Survival Rate of Dental Implants in the Cleft Area: A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study.

This study aimed to evaluate the survival rate of osseointegrated implants installed in the cleft area. An extensive data survey was conducted using the medical records of individuals who had implants installed in the cleft area between 1999 and 2020. The variables assessed were age, sex, implant follow-up time, implantation procedures, and rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses. Data were analyzed in terms of implant survival time, correlating with the factors: age, sex, execution, or no-execution of bone regrafting, the time interval between secondary alveolar bone grafting and regrafting, the time interval between regrafting and implant installation, and the time interval between implant installation and provisional and definitive prosthesis. Data were analyzed with respect to implant survival. χ 2 and Student t tests were used with a 5% significance level. A total of 1295 medical records were analyzed, of which 688 reported implants in cleft areas (56.1% in females, 43.9% in males) with a success rate of 92.73% and a mean follow-up time of 53.2 (±45.0) months. There were no statistically significant differences in the correlation between the survival rate and sex ( P = 0.895, χ 2 test), between the implant survival rate and regrafted area ( P = 0.904, χ 2 test), or between the survival rate and patient age ( P = 0.246, Student t test). The survival rate of implants in the cleft area was 92.73%. Age, sex, and the need for regrafting did not influence the survival rate of implants installed in the cleft area. Clinical studies that evaluate the survival rate of implants installed in patients with cleft maxilla are of great relevance to the dental field.