Comparative evaluation of a bioabsorbable collagen membrane and connective tissue graft in the treatment of localized gingival recession: A clinical study

Abstract

Background:Gingival recession (GR) can result in root sensitivity, esthetic concern to the patient, and predilection to root caries. The purpose of this randomized clinical study was to evaluate (1) the effect of guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure using a bioabsorbable collagen membrane, in comparison to autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) for root coverage in localized gingival recession defects; and (2) the change in width of keratinized gingiva following these two procedures.Materials and Methods:A total of 10 cases, showing at least two localized Miller's Class I or Class II gingival recession, participated in this study. In a split mouth design, the pairs of defects were randomly assigned for treatment with either SCTG (SCTG Group) or GTR-based collagen membrane (GTRC Group). Both the grafts were covered with coronally advanced flap. Recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), width of keratinized gingiva (KG), probing depth (PD), relative attachment level (RAL), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI) were recorded at baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively.Results:Six months following root coverage procedures, the mean root coverage was found to be 84.84% ± 16.81% and 84.0% ± 15.19% in SCTG Group and GTRC Group, respectively. The mean keratinized gingival width increase was 1.50 ± 0.70 mm and 2.30 ± 0.67 mm in the SCTG and GTRC group, respectively, which was not statistically significant.Conclusion:It may be concluded that resorbable collagen membrane can be a reliable alternative to autogenous connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recession.

Root coverage procedures for treating single and multiple recession‐type defects: An updated Cochrane systematic review

“…Forty‐eight studies (reported in 57 papers) were included in the review, with 20 providing data for meta‐analyses. Nine RCTs had their data reported in two articles each (i.e., according to the follow‐up period or type of data (i.e., clinical or patient‐reported outcomes) .…”

Periodontal Soft Tissue Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review From the AAP Regeneration Workshop

“…A total of 101 articles 30‐131 with 94 RCTs potentially eligible for inclusion into the pooled estimates were identified in the base of evidence, and their main characteristics (i.e., number and age of participants, interventions, follow‐up period, number of sites exhibiting CRC, MRC [percentage], use of RMAs, randomization, allocation concealment, masking of examiners, completeness of the follow‐up period, and risk of bias) are depicted in Table 2 30‐131 . Seven studies were reported in two articles each, and their data were reported under one study name 37,38,57,58,65,66,83,84,90,91,110,111,115,116 …”

“…Of the 94 trials included in Table 2, 52 were included in the following sets of meta‐analyses: 1) ADMG/CM + CAF versus SCTG‐based procedures; 31,66,76,97,102,114 2) ADMG/CM + CAF versus CAF; 57,58,86,125 3) BS + GTR with resorbable membranes (RS) + CAF versus GTR with RS + CAF; 62,63,78,101 4) EMD + CAF versus CAF; 51,53,59,71,94,103,115,116 5) EMD + CAF versus SCTG + CAF; 30,32,90,91 6) GTR with RS + CAF versus CAF; 36,83,84 7) GTR (all types of membrane) + CAF versus SCTG‐based procedures; 35,43,55,74,96,101,107,109,117,122,123,126 8) SCTG‐based procedures versus CAF; 40,41,54,56,80 9) SCTG + CAF versus SCTG (epithelial collar); 44,47 10) SCTG‐based procedures, micro versus macro procedures; 42,46 and 11) SCTG‐based procedures versus FGG 70,100 . All of the comparisons were performed using studies reporting data on single defects, except for one comparison on EMD + CAF versus CAF 53,71 that could also be conducted using data on multiple recessions.…”

“…Seven studies were reported in two articles each, and their data were reported under one study name. 37,38,57,58,65,66,83,84,90,91,110,111,115,116 Of the 94 trials included in Table 2, 52 were included in the following sets of meta-analyses: 1) ADMG/CM + CAF versus SCTG-based procedures; 31,66,76,97,102,114 2) ADMG/CM + CAF versus CAF; 57,58,86,125 3) BS + GTR with resorbable membranes (RS) + CAF versus GTR with RS + CAF; 62,63,78,101 4) EMD + CAF versus CAF; 51,53,59,71,94,103,115,116 5) EMD + CAF versus SCTG + CAF; 30,32,90,91 6) GTR with RS + CAF versus CAF; 36,83,84 7) GTR (all types of membrane) + CAF versus SCTG-based procedures; 35,43,55,74,96,101,107,109,117,122,123,126 8) SCTGbased procedures versus CAF; 40,41,54,56,80 9) SCTG + CAF versus SCTG (epithelial collar); 44,47 10) SCTG-ba...…”

Collagen membrane for reconstruction of soft tissue defects after surgery of oral cancer and precancer: a brief review

“…[10][11][12] This versatile material also finds its application in the field of plastic surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery and dentistry for various purposes e.g. as an interpositional graft material during palatoplasty; [13] for guided bone regeneration during maxillary sinus lift; [14] for inducing bone formation along with/without certain medicaments like gusuibu; [15,16] bone augmentation of posterior atrophic mandibular ridge for placement of dental implants; [17] as a reconstructive material for orbital floor fractures; [18] in treatment of localized gingival recession; [19] as a scaffold in tissue engineering to generate dental pulp; [20] for coverage of small intraoral soft tissue defects of the oral cavity [21] and much more. Collagen also has use as a medium for culturing cells such as osteoblasts.…”