Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Gingival unit grafts for localized gingival recession: A split mouth randomized controlled trial.
Katti, Neelima; Satpathy, Anurag; Mohanty, Devapratim; Pape Reddy, Saravanan Sampoornam; Agrawal, Poonam; Pradhan, Shib Shankar.
Afiliação
  • Katti N; Assistant Professor (Periodontics), SCB Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
  • Satpathy A; Professor (Periodontics & Oral Implantology), Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
  • Mohanty D; Assistant Professor (Periodontics), SCB Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
  • Pape Reddy SS; Classified Specialist (Periodontology), Army Dental Centre (Research & Referral), New Delhi, India.
  • Agrawal P; Senior Resident (Periodontics), SCB Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
  • Pradhan SS; Senior Resident (Periodontics), SCB Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
Med J Armed Forces India ; 80(4): 466-474, 2024.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39071762
ABSTRACT

Background:

The interaction between the recipient area and the graft is one of the key factors in the success of periodontal plastic surgery. This randomized controlled, split-mouth, double-blinded clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) and gingival unit graft (GUG) in achieving root coverage in localized (Recession Type 1) RT1 recession defects.

Methods:

Twenty participants with forty bilateral recession defects randomly received EPG or GUG surgical treatment modalities for each of the recession defects. Clinical measurements recorded at baseline and after six months included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and the average width of mesial and distal interdental papilla (aWIDP).

Results:

There was a statistically significant greater mean root coverage (MRC) percentage at GUG sites (80.68 ± 16.12%) in comparison to EPG sites (71.05 ± 17.23%) (p = 0.01). The treatment satisfaction (p = 0.009) and aesthetic satisfaction (p < 0.001) experienced were significantly better for GUG as compared to EPG. The regression model (R 2 = 0.56) significantly predicted MRC percentage in GUG sites with baseline RD (ß = -12.49; p = 0.02) and aWIDP (ß = -9.31; p = 0.02).

Conclusion:

GUG showed a better MRC, aesthetics and increased KTW. Root coverage procedures often need to suffice the dual objective of coverage and aesthetics at the same time. GUG is a simple modification of the conventional EPG that can provide better clinical and aesthetic outcomes.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article