Patient perceptions of buccal gingival recessions and requests for treatment

Nieri, Michele; Prato, Giovan Paolo Pini; Giani, Monica; Magnani, Nada; Pagliaro, Umberto; Rotundo, Roberto

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12114

Cited by 64 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a practice‐based evaluation of 500 consecutively treated patients treated with SCTGs (479 involving RC and 21 augmentation procedures), the incidence of infection (0.8%), bleeding (3.0%), swelling (5.4%), and pain (18.6%) was considered very low, and none of the potential predictor factors included in the statistical model (i.e., age, sex, smoking, purpose of the graft, recipient site size, or defect location) were directly associated with such complications 244 …”

Section: Patients’ Preferences (Patient‐centered Outcomes)mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chambrone

Tatakis

2015

Journal of Periodontology

387

615

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This paper aims to create a ''bridge'' between research and practice by developing a practical, extensive, and clinically relevant study that translates evidence-based findings on soft tissue root coverage (RC) of recession-type defects to daily clinical practice.Methods: This review is prepared in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement based on the proposed focused questions. A literature search with no restrictions regarding status or the language of publication was performed for MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to and including June 2013. Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized clinical trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, and case reports evaluating recession areas that were treated by means of RC procedures were considered eligible for inclusion through the three parts of the study (part I, an overview of the base of SRs; part II, an alternative random-effects meta-analyses on mean percentage of RC and sites exhibiting complete RC; and part III, an SR of non-randomized trials exploring other conditions not extensively evaluated by previous SRs). Data on Class I, II, III, and IV recessions, type of histologic attachment achieved with treatment, recipient-and donor-site anatomic characteristics, smoking-related outcomes, root surface conditions, tooth type and location, long-term effectiveness outcomes, unusual conditions that may be reported during conventional daily practice, and patient-centered outcomes were assessed as well.Results: Of the 2,456 potentially eligible trials, 234 were included. Data on Class I, II, III, and IV gingival recessions, histologic attachment achieved after treatment, recipient-and donor-site anatomic characteristics, smoking-related outcomes, root surface conditions/biomodification, tooth type and location, long-term effectiveness outcomes and unusual conditions that may be reported during conventional daily practice, and patient-centered outcomes (i.e., esthetic, visual analog scale, complications, hypersensitivity, patients perceptions) were assessed. Subepithelial connective tissue (CT)-based procedures and coronally advanced flap plus acellular dermal matrix grafts, enamel matrix derivative, or collagen matrix led to the best improvements of recession depth, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, and keratinized tissue (KT). Some conditions, such as smoking and use of magnification, may affect RC outcomes.Conclusions: All RC procedures can provide significant reduction in recession depth and CAL gain for Miller Class I and II recession-type defects. Subepithelial CT graft-based procedures provided the best outcomes for clinical practice because of their superior percentages of mean and complete RC, as well as significant increase of KT. J Periodontol 2015;86(Suppl.):S8-S51.

show abstract

Section: Patients’ Preferences (Patient‐centered Outcomes)mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Chambrone

Tatakis

2015

Journal of Periodontology

387

615

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…reported a prevalence of 99.7% of GRs ≥ 1 mm among Brazilian population, and that gender, age, smoking, and high education were risk factors for buccal GR . Nieri and coworkers showed that 80% of patients had one or more buccal GRs and that their perception of GRs was greater on anterior areas, deep GRs, and among young patients . The high prevalence of these mucogingival defects can be attributed to a large variety of predisposing and precipitating factors that include but are not limited to: plaque‐induced inflammation; toothbrush trauma; periodontal disease; malposition; frenum pull; iatrogenic; improper flossing; trauma associated with class II malocclusion; piercing trauma; and orthodontic treatment …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of tooth location on coronally advanced flap procedures for root coverage

Zucchelli

Tavelli

Ravidà

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While dentists view esthetics as the most important reason for root coverage procedures 34 , patients are often not even aware of recessions on their teeth since most of them are asymptomatic 35 . Only 28% of the clinically identified recession sites were perceived by patients as such, with a fraction being associated with dentin hypersensitivity or unaesthetic appearance.…”

Section: Factors To Be Considered For Treating Gingival Recessionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Gingival Recession Require Surgical Treatment?

Chan

Chun

MacEachern

et al. 2015

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gingival recession represents a clinical condition in adults frequently encountered in the general dental practice. It is estimated that 23% of adults in the US have one or more tooth surfaces with ≥ 3 mm gingival recession. Clinicians often time face dilemmas of whether or not to treat such a condition surgically. Therefore, we were charged by the editorial board to answer this critical question: “Does gingival recession require surgical treatment?” An initial condensed literature search was performed using a combination of gingival recession and surgery controlled terms and keywords. An analysis of the search results highlights our limited understanding of the factors that often guide the treatment of gingival recession. Understanding the etiology, prognosis and treatment of gingival recession continues to offer many unanswered questions and challenges in the field of periodontics as we strive to provide the best care possible for our patients.

show abstract

Patient perceptions of buccal gingival recessions and requests for treatment

Abstract: This study shows that perception of gingival recessions and the patients' requests for treatment should be evaluated carefully before proceeding with decision making.

Cited by 64 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Influence of tooth location on coronally advanced flap procedures for root coverage

Does Gingival Recession Require Surgical Treatment?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About