用富血小板纤维蛋白或结缔组织移植物覆盖根部:一项裂口随机试验。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Thaisa Macedo Iunes Carrera, Laryssa Moraes Machado, Marco Thúlio Rocha Soares, Gustavo Patrício Passos, Guilherme José Pimentel de Oliveira, Noé Vital Ribeiro Júnior, Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares, Suzane Cristina Pigossi
{"title":"用富血小板纤维蛋白或结缔组织移植物覆盖根部:一项裂口随机试验。","authors":"Thaisa Macedo Iunes Carrera,&nbsp;Laryssa Moraes Machado,&nbsp;Marco Thúlio Rocha Soares,&nbsp;Gustavo Patrício Passos,&nbsp;Guilherme José Pimentel de Oliveira,&nbsp;Noé Vital Ribeiro Júnior,&nbsp;Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares,&nbsp;Suzane Cristina Pigossi","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48942,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Oral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Root coverage with platelet-rich fibrin or connective tissue graft: a split-mouth randomized trial.\",\"authors\":\"Thaisa Macedo Iunes Carrera,&nbsp;Laryssa Moraes Machado,&nbsp;Marco Thúlio Rocha Soares,&nbsp;Gustavo Patrício Passos,&nbsp;Guilherme José Pimentel de Oliveira,&nbsp;Noé Vital Ribeiro Júnior,&nbsp;Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares,&nbsp;Suzane Cristina Pigossi\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48942,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Oral Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Oral Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0084","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较结缔组织移植物(CTG)和富血小板纤维蛋白(PRF)联合隧道技术(TT)治疗多发性牙龈衰退(GR)的效果。包括14例上颌门牙、犬齿和/或前磨牙多发双侧GR[1型退缩(RT 1)]患者。双侧TT(裂口模型);一侧用CTG (36 GR),另一侧用PRF (36 GR)。临床参数包括消退深度(RD)、探诊深度、临床附着水平(CAL)和角化牙龈厚度/宽度(GT/KTW),分别在基线和1、3、6和16个月后获得。16个月后CTG的RD(0.81±0.68 vs. 1.23±0.71 mm)和CAL(2.54±0.63 vs. 2.73±0.82 mm)低于PRF。CTG术后3个月(1.81±0.56 vs 1.43±0.47 mm)和6个月(1.67±0.61 vs 1.38±0.55 mm, p < 0.05) GT高于PRF。16个月后,CTG的衰退覆盖率(RC)(55.42%±37.14)高于PRF(29.53%±34.08)(p < 0.05)。同样,CTG对经济衰退的报道也更为全面(15;41.66%)高于PRF (9;24.32%)。两组之间在手术时间、术后疼痛或愈合模式方面没有显著差异。CTG获得了更高的审美满意度。结论CTG联合TT的临床和美学效果优于PRF的多重GR治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Brazilian Oral Research
Brazilian Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信