Treatment of multiple maxillary adjacent class I and II gingival recessions with modified coronally advanced tunnel and a new xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix

Abstract

The modified coronally advanced tunnel technique using the new porcine acellular dermal matrix represents a clinically and esthetically satisfactory treatment of multiple Miller Class 1 and 2 recession defects.

Efficacy of tunnel technique in the treatment of localized and multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Search results based on the PRISMA guidelines are depicted in Figure . Twenty articles reporting on 1181 recessions treated with TUN, with a mean follow‐up of 11 months, were included in the present systematic review (Tables and ) . Among these, six RCTs comparing CAF to TUN were considered for the meta‐analysis.…”

“…The results of bias risk assessment for the included case series, using The Joanna Briggs Institute Scale for Case Series, are summarized in . Seven studies had a moderate risk of bias and 2 had a high risk of bias …”

“…Twenty articles reporting on 1181 recessions * Rstudio Version 1.1.383, RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA treated with TUN, with a mean follow-up of 11 months, were included in the present systematic review (Tables 1 and 2). [14][15][16][17][18]20,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Among these, six RCTs comparing CAF to TUN 15,18,20,31,37,38 were considered for the meta-analysis. Excluded articles and reasons for exclusion are reported in Supplementary Data S4.…”

Clinical evaluation of Miller class I and II recessions treatment with the use of modified coronally advanced tunnel technique with either collagen matrix or subepithelial connective tissue graft: A randomized clinical study

“…The treatment of gingival recessions encompasses a number of established surgical techniques, including various tunnel procedures which, due to the elimination of vertical cuts, ensure good vascularization, nourishment of the flap and faster healing in the early phase (Allen, ; Aroca, Barbieri, Clementini, Renouard, & Sanctis, ; Vincent‐Bugnas, Borie, & Charbit, ; Zabalegui, Sicilia, Cambra, Gil, & Sanz, ). The effectiveness of this technique has been extensively discussed in the literature in recent years (Aroca et al., , ; Graziani et al., ; Molnár et al., ; Yaman, Demirel, Aksu, & Basegmez, ).…”

“…There are, however, some drawbacks of using autogenous grafts. Harvesting the graft creates yet another surgical site, and the amount of available tissue may be limited (Cairo, 2017;Vincent-Bugnas et al, 2018). The surgery itself takes longer time, makes the patient suffer additional pain and increases a risk of intra-and postsurgical complications, mainly bleeding from the donor site (Griffin, Cheung, Zavras, & Damoulis, 2006;Soileau & Brannon, 2006).…”