Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Kalka Dental College and Hospital, Meerut (UP), India.
Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Shree Bankey Bihari Dental College and Hospital, Masuri, Ghaziabad (UP), India.
J Med Life. 2022 May;15(5):705-716. doi: 10.25122/jml-2021-0109.
Numerous surgical procedures are used to correct gingival recession, like free gingival graft, pedicle graft, and connective tissue graft. Our study aimed to compare and clinically evaluate root coverage using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with and without Biomesh membrane to treat recession type 1 (RT) and type 2 (RT) defects. A total of 20 systemically stable patients, both males and females between the ages of 20 and 40, with bilateral recession defects in maxillary canines and premolars, were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: the control group: coronally advanced flap only and the test group: coronally advanced flap with Biomesh membrane. All clinical parameters showed significant reductions from baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-surgery. Gingival recession significantly reduced both in test and control groups with no intergroup difference. The exposed root was covered by 70% in the test group and 78% in the control group. Clinical attachment level, the width of keratinized tissue, recession height, and recession width was significantly increased in the case of coronally advanced flap alone with significant intragroup comparison. The results for both treatment techniques for recession coverage were compared. CAF displayed superior results than CAF along with Biomesh membrane in terms of clinical attachment level, root coverage percentage, and attached gingiva width.
有许多手术方法可用于矫正牙龈退缩,如游离龈瓣移植、带蒂瓣移植和结缔组织移植。我们的研究旨在比较并临床评估使用冠向推进瓣(CAF)联合和不联合 Biomesh 膜治疗 1 型(RT)和 2 型(RT)牙龈退缩缺损的效果。共有 20 名系统稳定的患者,年龄在 20 至 40 岁之间,男女皆有,患有上颌尖牙和前磨牙的双侧退缩缺损,纳入本研究。患者分为两组:对照组:仅行冠向推进瓣;实验组:行冠向推进瓣联合 Biomesh 膜。所有临床参数均显示从基线、术后 1 个月、3 个月和 6 个月开始显著降低。实验组和对照组的牙龈退缩均显著减少,两组间无差异。实验组的暴露根被覆盖 70%,对照组为 78%。单独行冠向推进瓣术的临床附着水平、角化组织宽度、退缩高度和退缩宽度均显著增加,组内比较有显著差异。比较了两种治疗技术的退缩覆盖效果。在临床附着水平、根覆盖率和附着龈宽度方面,CAF 均优于 CAF 联合 Biomesh 膜。