脱细胞真皮基质同种异体移植物(ADMA)与上皮下结缔组织移植物(SCTG)治疗牙龈萎缩的比较。

Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry Pub Date : 2020-04-21 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.34172/japid.2020.004
Niloofar Jenabian, Mohadese Yazdanpanahbahabadi, Parya Haghpanah Aski, Ali Bijani
{"title":"脱细胞真皮基质同种异体移植物(ADMA)与上皮下结缔组织移植物(SCTG)治疗牙龈萎缩的比较。","authors":"Niloofar Jenabian,&nbsp;Mohadese Yazdanpanahbahabadi,&nbsp;Parya Haghpanah Aski,&nbsp;Ali Bijani","doi":"10.34172/japid.2020.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effect of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) for the treatment of gingival recession as a substitute for subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this controlled clinical trial, 18 teeth were selected in nine subjects with bilateral gingival recession. One side was treated with SCTG and a coronally displaced flap as the control group, and the other side was treated with ADMA and a coronally displaced flap as the test group. Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level, vertical recession depth, recession width, gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and the root coverage percentage were measured before the surgery and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative intervals. The healing index, pain index, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. The data were analyzed with a general linear model (GLM) repeated measures and paired t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All the parameters improved except for PPD; however, a comparison between the groups did not reveal statistically significant differences. Only root coverage percentage and pain index were significantly lower in the test group. The average percentage of root coverage in the control and test groups were 82.01±16.62% and 64.44±9.4%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both methods resulted in improvements in the clinical results. However, the use of the ADMA led to less pain and root coverage in comparison with the SCTG method.</p>","PeriodicalId":73584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","volume":"12 1","pages":"11-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327458/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.\",\"authors\":\"Niloofar Jenabian,&nbsp;Mohadese Yazdanpanahbahabadi,&nbsp;Parya Haghpanah Aski,&nbsp;Ali Bijani\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/japid.2020.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effect of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) for the treatment of gingival recession as a substitute for subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this controlled clinical trial, 18 teeth were selected in nine subjects with bilateral gingival recession. One side was treated with SCTG and a coronally displaced flap as the control group, and the other side was treated with ADMA and a coronally displaced flap as the test group. Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level, vertical recession depth, recession width, gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and the root coverage percentage were measured before the surgery and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative intervals. The healing index, pain index, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. The data were analyzed with a general linear model (GLM) repeated measures and paired t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All the parameters improved except for PPD; however, a comparison between the groups did not reveal statistically significant differences. Only root coverage percentage and pain index were significantly lower in the test group. The average percentage of root coverage in the control and test groups were 82.01±16.62% and 64.44±9.4%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both methods resulted in improvements in the clinical results. However, the use of the ADMA led to less pain and root coverage in comparison with the SCTG method.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"11-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327458/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2020.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2020.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在评价脱细胞真皮基质同种异体移植物(ADMA)替代上皮下结缔组织移植物(SCTG)治疗牙龈萎缩的效果。方法:对9例双侧牙龈退缩患者进行对照临床试验,选择18颗牙。一侧行SCTG +冠状移位瓣治疗作为对照组,另一侧行ADMA +冠状移位瓣治疗作为试验组。术前、术后1个月、3个月、6个月分别测量探测袋深度(PPD)、临床附着水平、垂直凹陷深度、凹陷宽度、牙龈厚度、角化组织宽度、牙根覆盖率。并对治疗指数、疼痛指数和患者满意度进行调查。采用一般线性模型(GLM)、重复测量和配对t检验对数据进行分析。结果:除PPD外,其他参数均有改善;然而,两组之间的比较并没有显示出统计学上的显著差异。仅试验组牙根覆盖率和疼痛指数显著低于对照组。对照组和试验组根系覆盖度平均值分别为82.01±16.62%和64.44±9.4%。结论:两种方法均能提高临床疗效。然而,与SCTG方法相比,ADMA的使用导致更少的疼痛和根覆盖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.

Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.

Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.

Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for the treatment of gingival recession.

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) for the treatment of gingival recession as a substitute for subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).

Methods: In this controlled clinical trial, 18 teeth were selected in nine subjects with bilateral gingival recession. One side was treated with SCTG and a coronally displaced flap as the control group, and the other side was treated with ADMA and a coronally displaced flap as the test group. Probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level, vertical recession depth, recession width, gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and the root coverage percentage were measured before the surgery and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month postoperative intervals. The healing index, pain index, and patient satisfaction were also investigated. The data were analyzed with a general linear model (GLM) repeated measures and paired t-test.

Results: All the parameters improved except for PPD; however, a comparison between the groups did not reveal statistically significant differences. Only root coverage percentage and pain index were significantly lower in the test group. The average percentage of root coverage in the control and test groups were 82.01±16.62% and 64.44±9.4%, respectively.

Conclusion: Both methods resulted in improvements in the clinical results. However, the use of the ADMA led to less pain and root coverage in comparison with the SCTG method.

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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 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