首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Periodontology >Significance of the epithelial collar on the subepithelial connective tissue graft.
【24h】

Significance of the epithelial collar on the subepithelial connective tissue graft.

机译:上皮环在上皮下结缔组织移植物中的意义。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Most clinicians adopt two versions of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) procedure, SCTG with or without the epithelial collar on the graft combined with a coronally advanced flap (CAF). However, limited evidence is available to determine whether a retained epithelial collar on an SCTG is needed for a better outcome. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the two SCTG techniques (i.e., SCTG with or without an epithelial collar). METHODS: Twenty patients with Miller Class I or II gingival defects >/=2.0 mm were recruited for the study. The patients were randomly assigned to receive an SCTG with a retained epithelial collar + CAF (SCTGE; n = 10) or an SCTG without an epithelial collar + CAF (SCTGN; n = 10). Clinical parameters, including recession depth, recession width (RW), width of keratinized gingiva (KW), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI), were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: SCTGE and SCTGN groups exhibited significant root coverage at 3 and 6 months compared to baseline (P <0.05). The SCTGE group had mean root coverage of 97.50% +/- 7.90% at 6 months compared to 89.10% +/- 25.93% in the SCTGN group, with no significant difference between the groups. At 6 months, complete root coverage was seen in nine of 10 and seven of 10 subjects from SCTGE and SCTGN groups, respectively. Mean KW at 3 months for the SCTGE group was 4.10 +/- 1.10 mm, whereas in the SCTGN group it was 2.75 +/- 0.68 mm. Mean RW was 0 mm and 1.20 +/- 1.60 mm for SCTGE and SCTGN groups, respectively. KW and RW were statistically significantly different between the two groups at 3 months; however, this significance was not seen at 6 months. Other clinical parameters (CAL, PD, thickness of the recipient gingival tissue, PI, GI, and the wound healing index) showed no significant differences between the groups at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Both SCTG techniques (with or without the epithelial collar) provided predictable and successful root coverage (>/=89%). This study suggests that a retained epithelial collar on the SCTG may not provide a significant benefit with regard to clinical parameters.
机译:背景:大多数临床医生采用上皮下结缔组织移植术(SCTG)的两种版本,SCTG在有或无冠状动脉上皮瓣(CAF)的移植物上带有或不带有上皮项圈。然而,有限的证据可用于确定是否需要在SCTG上保留上皮项圈以获得更好的结果。这项研究的目的是比较两种SCTG技术(即有或没有上皮项圈的SCTG)的临床结果。方法:招募了20例米勒I级或II级牙龈缺损> / = 2.0 mm的患者。随机分配患者接受保留上皮环+ CAF的SCTG(SCTGE; n = 10)或不包含上皮环+ CAF的SCTG(SCTGN; n = 10)。在以下位置评估了临床参数,包括后退深度,后退宽度(RW),角化牙龈宽度(KW),临床附着水平(CAL),探测深度(PD),牙龈指数(GI)和菌斑指数(PI)。基线以及术后3个月和6个月。结果:与基线相比,SCTGE和SCTGN组在3和6个月时表现出显着的根覆盖(P <0.05)。 SCTGE组在6个月时的平均根覆盖率为97.50%+/- 7.90%,而SCTGN组为89.10%+/- 25.93%,两组之间无显着差异。在6个月时,分别来自SCTGE和SCTGN组的10名受试者中有9名和10名受试者中有7名完全覆盖了根。 SCTGE组在3个月时的平均KW为4.10 +/- 1.10 mm,而SCTGN组为2.75 +/- 0.68 mm。 SCTGE和SCTGN组的平均RW分别为0 mm和1.20 +/- 1.60 mm。两组在3个月时的KW和RW有统计学差异。但是,这种重要性在6个月后还没有出现。其他临床参数(CAL,PD,受体牙龈组织的厚度,PI,GI和伤口愈合指数)在任何时间点均未显示两组之间的显着差异。结论:两种SCTG技术(带或不带上皮项圈)均可提供可预测的成功牙根覆盖率(> / = 89%)。这项研究表明,SCTG上保留的上皮项圈可能无法在临床参数方面提供明显的益处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号