Zucchelli G, Mounssif I, Stefanini M, Mele M, Montebugnoli L, Sforza N M
Department of Odontostomatology, Bologna University, Bologna, Italy.
J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):577-85. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080485.
The role of vigorous root planing in the surgical treatment of gingival recession was recently questioned. The aim of the present randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study was to compare the effectiveness, in terms of root coverage, of hand and ultrasonic root instrumentation in combination with a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of isolated-type recession defects.
Eleven systemically and periodontally healthy subjects with bilateral recession defects (> or = 3 mm) of similar (< or = 1 mm) depth affecting contralateral teeth were enrolled in the study. Only Miller Class I gingival recession with no deep cervical abrasion or root caries/demineralization were included in the study. Control root exposures were treated with curets, whereas test roots were instrumented with ultrasonic piezoelectric devices. Randomization for test and control treatment was performed by a coin toss immediately prior to surgery. All recessions were treated with a coronally advanced flap surgical technique. The clinical reevaluation was made 6 months after surgery.
The two approaches resulted in a high percentage of root coverage (95.4% in the control group and 84.2% in the test group) and complete root coverage (82% in the control group and 55% in the test teeth), with no statistically significant difference between them. Clinical attachment level gains were clinically significant in both groups (3.36 +/- 0.92 mm in the control group and 2.90 +/- 0.70 mm in the test group), with no statistically significant difference between them. The increase in keratinized tissue height was statistically significant in both groups (0.55 +/- 0.52 mm in the control group and 0.36 +/- 0.67 mm in the test group), with no difference between them.
The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority, in terms of root-coverage results, for hand instruments over ultrasonic treatment of the root surface in combination with coronally advanced flap mucogingival surgery. Further studies of longer-term duration and larger sample size could help to establish the superiority of one form of root instrumentation in conjunction with root-coverage surgery.
近期,龈下刮治术在牙龈退缩手术治疗中的作用受到质疑。本随机对照半口临床研究的目的是比较手工和超声根面平整术联合冠向复位瓣治疗孤立型牙龈退缩缺损在牙根覆盖方面的有效性。
11名全身和牙周健康的受试者参与了本研究,其双侧牙齿存在深度相似(≤1mm)且大于或等于3mm的牙龈退缩缺损。本研究仅纳入无深层颈部磨损或根面龋/脱矿的Miller I类牙龈退缩。对照牙根暴露采用龈下刮治器治疗,而试验牙根采用超声压电装置进行处理。在手术前立即通过抛硬币的方式对试验组和对照组治疗进行随机分组。所有退缩均采用冠向复位瓣手术技术进行治疗。术后6个月进行临床复查。
两种方法均导致较高比例的牙根覆盖(对照组为95.4%,试验组为84.2%)和完全牙根覆盖(对照组为82%,试验牙为55%),两者之间无统计学显著差异。两组的临床附着水平增加均具有临床意义(对照组为3.36±0.92mm,试验组为2.90±0.70mm),两者之间无统计学显著差异。两组角化组织高度的增加均具有统计学意义(对照组为0.55±0.52mm,试验组为0.36±0.67mm),两者之间无差异。
本研究未能证明在牙根覆盖结果方面,手工器械相对于超声根面处理联合冠向复位瓣龈黏膜手术具有任何优势。进一步开展长期、大样本量的研究可能有助于确定一种根面处理方式联合牙根覆盖手术的优势。