Background This study was conducted to assess the clinical, immunological, and patient‐centered outcomes of microcurrent electrotherapy on palatal wound healing. Methods This was a parallel, double‐masked randomized clinical trial, in which 53 patients with ridge preservation indications were selected and randomly assigned to one of two groups. In the control (sham) group (n = 27), palatal wounds, after free gingival grafts (FGG) harvest, received sham application of electrotherapy. In the test (electrotherapy treatment [EE]) group (n = 26), palatal wounds, after FGG harvest, received application of microcurrent electrotherapy protocol. Clinical parameters, patient‐centered outcomes, and inflammatory markers were evaluated, up to 90 days postoperatively. Results The EE group achieved earlier wound closure (P <0.001) and epithelialization (P <0.05; P = 0.03) at 7 and 14 days after harvest when compared with the sham group. Painful symptomatology was reported less frequently in the EE group than in the sham group at 3‐day follow‐up (P = 0.008). Likewise, an improvement in Oral Health Impact Profile was reported 2 days after the procedure by the EE group (P = 0.04). In addition, favorable modulation of inflammatory wound healing markers occurred when electrotherapy was applied. Conclusion Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of a low‐intensity electrotherapy protocol may accelerate palatal wound healing and decrease patient discomfort after FGG harvest.

Background: The literature lacks long-term evidence regarding outcomes of the coronally advanced tunnel flap (TUN) combined with connective tissue graft (CTG) when compared to the trapezoidal coronally advanced flap (CAF) and CTG combination. This study presents 2-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing CTG combined with either CAF or TUN in the treatment of single maxillary gingival recession (GR) defects. Methods: Thirty-nine patients, each contributing a single Miller Class I or II GR defect, were treated by CAF+CTG (control; n = 19) or TUN+CTG (test; n = 20) and completed the 2-year follow up. Clinical, patient centered, and esthetic evaluations were performed and differences among groups were analyzed. Results: At 2 years, mean root coverage for control and test group was 89.5% ± 14.6% and 87.7% ± 18.4%, respectively (P = 0.5). The corresponding complete root coverage prevalence was 68.4% and 50% (P = 0.4). Dentin hypersensitivity significantly decreased for both groups. The two groups showed improvement in esthetics, as assessed by both professionals and patients, without significant intergroup differences (P > 0.5). TUN+CTG sites were much more likely to present improvement in root coverage between 6 months and 2 years, exhibiting creeping attachment of 0.7 ± 0.6 mm. Conclusions: At 2 years of follow up, both CAF+CTG and TUN+CTG resulted in significant clinical and esthetic improvements and provided similar results in the treatment of single maxillary GRs.

Background: Xenogeneic matrices (XMs) have been increasingly used for root coverage procedures. This study compared the use of two types of XM (collagen matrix [CM] and xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix [XDM]) associated with the coronally advanced flap technique (CAF) to treat single gingival recessions.Methods: Seventy-five patients presenting single RT1 gingival recession were treated by CAF (control group, n = 25), CAF+CM (test group 1, n = 25), or CAF+XDM (test group 2, n = 25) and completed 6-month follow-up. Clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic assessments were performed and intra-and intergroup differences were analyzed.Results: At 6 months, the mean recession reduction for CAF, CAF+CM, and CAF+XDM was 2.4 ± 0.8 mm, 2.4 ± 0.9 mm and 2.1 ± 0.8 mm, respectively (P > 0.05). The corresponding mean percentage of root coverage was 78.9% ± 26.2% for CAF, 78.0% ± 28.5% for CAF+CM, and 65.6% ± 26.9% for CAF+XDM (P > 0.05). Dentin hypersensitivity and esthetic conditions showed significantly improvements in all groups. Test groups presented significant gains in gingival thickness (GT; CAF+CM: 0.4 ± 0.3 mm; CAF+XDM: 0.4 ± 0.2 mm) compared to the control group (CAF: 0.0 ± 0.1 mm; P < 0.05). Conclusion:The CAF, CAF+CM, and CAF+XDM treatments each provided similar results in the treatment of single gingival recessions. The addition of either CM or XDM to CAF increases the GT.

Background This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical, immunologic, and patient‐centered outcomes of enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) on excisional wounds in palatal mucosa. Materials Forty‐four patients in need of ridge preservation were randomly allocated into two groups: control group (n = 22): open palatal wound after free gingival graft (FGG) harvest and EMD group (n = 22): open palatal wound after FGG harvest that received 0.3 ml of EMD. Clinical and patient‐centered parameters were analyzed for 3 months post‐treatment. Wound fluid levels of inflammatory markers were assessed 3 and 7 days postoperatively. Results No significant inter‐group difference was observed in remaining wound area and re‐epithelialization. EMD and control groups achieved wound closure and re‐epithelialization 30 days postoperatively (p < .001), without inter‐group differences. Similarly, number of analgesics and Oral Health Impact Profile scores did not present significant inter‐group differences (p > .05). EMD appeared to selectively modulate wound fluid levels of monocyte chemoattractant protein‐1, macrophage inflammatory protein‐1α, matrix metallopeptidase 9, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases‐2. Conclusion Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that EMD application to excisional palatal wounds using the investigated protocol does not provide clinical healing benefits, despite an apparent modulation of selected inflammatory markers.

No abstract