The Influence of Gingival Phenotype on the Outcomes of Coronally Advanced Flap: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the influence of gingival phenotype (GPh) on the clinical outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF). In this prospective study, 24 gingival recessions (recession type RT1 class or Miller Classes I and II) in 21 patients were treated with CAF alone. Patients were classified as having thin, medium, thick, or very thick GPh using a color-coded probe. At 6 months, the lowest mean root coverage (mRC; 60.4% ± 28.8%) and complete root coverage (CRC; 25%) were found in patients with thin GPh compared to patients with medium (mRC: 86.4% ± 17.6%; CRC: 60%), thick (mRC: 93.3% ± 14.9%; CRC: 83.3%), and very thick (mRC: 86.7% ± 26.7%; CRC: 80%) GPh. Regression analysis showed a statistically significant difference (P < .05) between thin and thick/very thick GPh in the likelihood of achieving CRC. Higher RES values were observed in patients with thick and very thick GPh (8.2 ± 1.5 and 8.4 ± 1.4, respectively), while thin GPh was related to the lowest RES score (6.3 ± 2.2). CAF performed in patients with thick or very thick GPh resulted in superior clinical and esthetic outcomes than thin and medium GPh. In particular, thin GPh was associated with the lowest mRC, CRC, and root coverage esthetic scores.

Prevalence of altered passive eruption in orthodontically treated and untreated patients.

BACKGROUND: Some authors have reported that after orthodontic treatment (OT), a "gummy smile" might develop. Nevertheless, there are no studies in the literature that investigate whether OT increases the presence of altered passive eruption (APE). The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to evaluate the prevalence of APE after OT (OT group) and compare it with patients who never received OT (control group). A secondary aim is to identify which variables are related to APE. METHODS: The study population consisted of 190 patients (95 patients each in the control and OT groups), providing 1,140 anterior teeth for the clinical examination. The following clinical parameters were assessed: presence or absence of APE, clinical crown length, and gingival biotype, which was divided into three categories: thin-scalloped, thick-flat, and thick-scalloped. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (29.5%) were diagnosed with APE in the control group and 40 (42.1%) in the OT group, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). Furthermore, 34 (75.6%) patients with thick-flat biotype were diagnosed with APE, whereas 30 (31.3%) and four (8.2%) with thick-scalloped and thin-scalloped biotypes, respectively, had APE. These differences were statistically significant (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that: 1) the prevalence of APE is higher after OT but not to a statistically significant degree and 2) APE is more common in individuals with a thick-flat gingival biotype.

In vitro evaluation of the root surface microtopography following the use of two polishing systems by Confocal Microscopy (CFM) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).

OBJECTIVES: To compare and evaluate the root surface roughness after using two polishing instruments for root planing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comparative study was carried out on a sample of ten extracted human teeth with twenty interproximal root surfaces. Control group 1 and 2: (n=20 root surface): Gracey Curettes, 15 vertical strokes. Test group 1 (n=10): control group 1 + Termination Diamond Curettes (TDC), 15 strokes. Test group 2 (n=10): control group 2 + Termination Diamond Burs -15 µm (TDB), with irrigation for 15 seconds at 3000 rpm. The root surface was planed with the polishing instruments and test measurements were obtained with Confocal Microscopy (CFM) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The primary outcome variable was surface roughness (Ra). RESULTS: CFM showed that the TDC, mean changes in surface roughness (Ra) were reduced by 0.11 ± 0.14 (p-value = 0.000), and the TDB, Ra: were reduced by 0.27 ± 0.86 (p-value = 0.037). Non-statistically significant differences were observed in Ra (p-value = 0.581) between the two polishing instruments. SEM showed that the Group 2 showed a generally rougher surface with more parallel grooves than Group 1. CONCLUSION: There are no statistically significant differences between these two polishing systems, although TDB seems to reduce the surface roughness more than the TDC after being treated with Gracey Curettes.