Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patient-reported outcomes and aesthetic evaluation of root coverage procedures: a 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Stefanini, Martina; Jepsen, Karin; de Sanctis, Massimo; Baldini, Nicola; Greven, Björn; Heinz, Bernd; Wennström, Jan; Cassel, Björn; Vignoletti, Fabio; Sanz, Mariano; Jepsen, Søren; Zucchelli, Giovanni.
Afiliação
  • Stefanini M; Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • Jepsen K; Department of Periodontology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  • de Sanctis M; Department of Periodontology, Vita Salute San Raffaele University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
  • Baldini N; Department of Periodontology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
  • Greven B; Private Practice, Hamburg, Germany.
  • Heinz B; Private Practice, Hamburg, Germany.
  • Wennström J; Department of Periodontology, the Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Cassel B; Department of Periodontology, the Sahlgrenska Academy University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
  • Vignoletti F; Department of Periodontology, University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Sanz M; Department of Periodontology, University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Jepsen S; Department of Periodontology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
  • Zucchelli G; Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
J Clin Periodontol ; 43(12): 1132-1141, 2016 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27717210
ABSTRACT

AIM:

To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), aesthetics and stability of root coverage procedures from a previous 6-month RCT after 1 year. MATERIAL &

METHODS:

Forty-five patients (90 recessions) had received a coronally advanced flap (CAF = control) only or a xenogeneic collagen matrix in addition (CAF + CMX = test). Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used for PROMs and the root coverage aesthetic score (RES) for professional aesthetic evaluations.

RESULTS:

VAS scores (patient satisfaction) amounted to 8.58 ± 1.86 (test) versus 8.38 ± 2.46 (control). Six patients preferred CAF + CMX concerning surgical procedure and aesthetics, six preferred CAF and 29 were equally satisfied. RES was 7.85 ± 2.42 for the test group versus 7.34 ± 2.90 for the controls. Root coverage (RC) was 76.28% for test and 75.05% for control defects. The mean increase in keratinized tissue width was higher in test (from 1.97 to 3.02 mm) than in controls (from 2.00 to 2.64 mm) (p = 0.0413). Likewise, test sites showed more gain in gingival thickness (0.52 mm) than control sites (0.27 mm) (p = 0.0023). Compared to 6 months, clinical outcomes were stable.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results for PROMs, RES and RC did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Thickness and width of keratinized tissue were enhanced following CAF + CMX compared to CAF alone.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estética Dentária Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Itália

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Estética Dentária Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Periodontol Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Itália