Root coverage using coronally advanced flap with porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix or subepithelial connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Attachment Gain After Applying Xenogeneic Acellular Dermal Matrix in the Management of Isolated Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background and objectives Mucogingival plastic surgery is a surgical procedure performed to prevent or correct anatomical, developmental, or traumatic defects. The problem of gingival recession is common in dental practice, causing pain and dentin hypersensitivity for the patient, and remains difficult to treat surgically at the second surgical site used to harvest the connective graft. Many alternatives have been used to replace connective grafts, but none have been as effective. The importance of guided tissue regeneration remains to gain attachment because it means the formation of new periodontal tissue. This study aims to evaluate the attachment gain (AG) obtained after the management of single gingival recessions of Class I and Class II of Miller's classification. Material and methods This study was designed as a clinical randomized trial using a split-mouth technique. The study sample included 15 patients (30 symmetrical gingival recessions). The first group included the coronally advanced flap (CAF) with the connective tissue graft (CTG), and the second group included the CAF with the Xenogeneic Acellular Dermal Matrix (XDM) (Mucoderm®, Botiss Biomaterials, Zossen, Germany). AG was measured at baseline and after six months. Results The results showed that the mean relative attachment level at baseline was 8.333±0.899 in the CTG+CAF group and 8.466±0.833 in the XDM+CAF group. After six months of follow-up, the levels remained 8.333±0.899 in the CTG+CAF group and 8.466±0.833 in the XDM+CAF group, with a significant difference between the study groups after six months. Conclusion The current study concluded that both grafts applied with the coronally advanced flap led to a gain in attachment, with a greater gain in the CTG group.

Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft (AXDM) compared to connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating multiple gingival recessions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared AXDM and CTG. The selected studies were subjected to bias risk assessment, data extraction, and meta-analyses. Parameters such as gingival recession height, width, mean percentage of root coverage, and complete root coverage were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 146 patients were included. The meta-analyses indicated that CTG was statistically superior to AXDM in reducing gingival recession height at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.104 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.180-0.028, p = 0.008) and width at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.285 mm, 95% CI: -0.541-0.030, p = 0.029). CTG also demonstrated a significantly higher mean percentage of root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (difference in means: -2.761 mm, 95% CI: -4.932-0.590, p = 0.013) and a higher percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (odds Ratio [OR]: 0.598, 95% CI: 0.4-0.892, p = 0.012) compared to AXDM. However, there was no significant difference in the number of teeth with complete root coverage between CTG and AXDM (OR: 1.610, 95% CI: 0.983-2.636, p = 0.058) and aesthetic outcomes (mean difference: 0.148, 95% CI: -0.277-0.573, p = 0.494).

CONCLUSIONS

CTG is more effective than AXDM in treating multiple gingival recessions. This is evidenced by significant reductions in gingival recession height and width, a higher mean percentage of root coverage, and a greater percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In some clinical situations an alternative to CTG is required for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. AXDM, despite presenting clinical outcomes that are not as satisfactory as CTG, can be used for this purpose.

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of tissue engineering strategies for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction

Scientific advancements in biomaterials, cellular therapies, and growth factors have brought new therapeutic options for periodontal and peri-implant reconstructive procedures. These tissue engineering strategies involve the enrichment of scaffolds with living cells or signaling molecules and aim at mimicking the cascades of wound healing events and the clinical outcomes of conventional autogenous grafts, without the need for donor tissue. Several tissue engineering strategies have been explored over the years for a variety of clinical scenarios, including periodontal regeneration, treatment of gingival recessions/mucogingival conditions, alveolar ridge preservation, bone augmentation procedures, sinus floor elevation, and peri-implant bone regeneration therapies. The goal of this article was to review the tissue engineering strategies that have been performed for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction and implant site development, and to evaluate their safety, invasiveness, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes. A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible randomized controlled trials reporting the outcomes of tissue engineering strategies utilized for the aforementioned indications. A total of 128 trials were ultimately included in this review for a detailed qualitative analysis. Commonly performed tissue engineering strategies involved scaffolds enriched with mesenchymal or somatic cells (cell-based tissue engineering strategies), or more often scaffolds loaded with signaling molecules/growth factors (signaling molecule-based tissue engineering strategies). These approaches were found to be safe when utilized for periodontal and peri-implant reconstruction therapies and implant site development. Tissue engineering strategies demonstrated either similar or superior clinical outcomes than conventional approaches for the treatment of infrabony and furcation defects, alveolar ridge preservation, and sinus floor augmentation. Tissue engineering strategies can promote higher root coverage, keratinized tissue width, and gingival thickness gain than scaffolds alone can, and they can often obtain similar mean root coverage compared with autogenous grafts. There is some evidence suggesting that tissue engineering strategies can have a positive effect on patient morbidity, their preference, esthetics, and quality of life when utilized for the treatment of mucogingival deformities. Similarly, tissue engineering strategies can reduce the invasiveness and complications of autogenous graft-based staged bone augmentation. More studies incorporating patient-reported outcomes are needed to understand the cost-benefits of tissue engineering strategies compared with traditional treatments.

Soft tissue phenotype modification predicts gingival margin long-term (10-year) stability: Longitudinal analysis of six randomized clinical trials

Aim

To assess the prognostic value of soft tissue phenotype modification following root coverage procedures for predicting the long‐term (10‐year) behaviour of the gingival margin.

Materials and Methods

Participants from six randomized clinical trials on root coverage procedures at the University of Michigan were re‐invited for a longitudinal evaluation. Clinical measurements were obtained by two calibrated examiners. A data‐driven approach to model selection with Akaike information criterion (AIC) was carried out via multilevel regression analyses and partial regression plotting for changes in the level of the gingival margin over time and interactions with the early (6‐month) results of soft tissue phenotypic modification.

Results

One‐hundred and fifty‐seven treated sites in 83 patients were re‐assessed at the long‐term recall. AIC‐driven model selection and regression analyses demonstrated that 6‐month keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) influenced the trajectory of the gingival margin similarly in a concave manner; however, GT was the driving determinant that predicted significantly less relapse in the treatments, with stability of the treated gingival margin obtained beyond values of 1.46 mm.

Conclusions

Among a compliant patient cohort, irrespective of the rendered therapy, the presence of at least 1.5 mm KTW and 1.46 mm GT was correlated with the long‐term stability of the gingival margin.

Comparison between connective tissue graft and xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix to treat single gingival recession: A data reanalysis of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

There are few studies comparing xenogeneic acellular dermal matrixes (XDMs) with connective tissue graft (CTG) to treat single gingival recession (GR). The present study involved a reanalysis of previous studies and comparison of CTG or XDM to treat single RT1/GR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients from three previous randomized clinical trials treated either by CTG (n = 25) or XDM (n = 25) were evaluated after 6-month. Clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic parameters were assessed. Pearson's correlation and regression analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Greater recession reduction (RecRed), percentage of root coverage (%RC), and complete root coverage (CRC) were observed in the CTG group (p ≤ 0.02). Gingival thickness (GT) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) gains were higher in the CTG group. The CTG group showed better esthetic at 6-month. Logistic analyses reported that GT([OR] = 1.647³ ) and papilla height (PH) (OR = 8.20) are predictors of CRC. GT*XDM interaction was a negative predictor of CRC (OR = 7.105^-5 ). GT at baseline acted as a predictor of RecRed in both groups (p = 0.03). The XDM graft impacted RecRed and %RC negatively. Baseline PH was a predictor of %RC for both grafts.

CONCLUSION

CTG was superior for treating RT1/GR, providing better root coverage outcomes and tissue gains over time. GT, PH, and graft type were classified as predictors of CRC.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CTG presented better outcomes to treat single RT1 gingival recession when compared to the XDM.

The Progress of Decellularized Scaffold in Stomatology

The oral and maxillofacial region contains oral organs and facial soft tissues. Due to the complexity of the structures and functions of this region, the repair of related defects is complicated. Different degrees of defects require different repair methods, which involve a great combination of medicine and art, and the material requirements are extremely high. Hence, clinicians are plagued by contemporary oral repair materials due to the limitations of bone harvesting, immune rejection, low osteogenic activity and other problems. Decellularized extracellular matrix has attracted much attention as a bioactive scaffold material because of its nonimmunogenic properties, good osteogenic properties, slow release of growth factors, promotion of seed cell adhesion and maintenance of stem cell characteristics. This article reviews the sources, preparation methods, application and research progress of extracellular matrix materials in the repair of oral and maxillofacial defects to provide an overview for fundamental research and clinical development.

Does the subepithelial connective tissue graft in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap remain as the gold standard therapy for the treatment of single gingival recession defects? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of a bilaminar root coverage technique consisting of the combination of an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and a coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to the five most indicated alternative approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession defects (GRD).

METHODS

The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020221362). Three electronic databases were searched up to September 30^th , 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that involved the treatment of single GRD without interproximal tissue loss via root coverage procedures. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted for complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) changes.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies reporting on 830 patients and 1,265 GRD were included. SCTG+CAF was ranked as the most efficient treatment approach for MRC, CRC and KTW gain at 6 and 12 months after surgery, except for MRC at the 12-month follow-up where enamel matrix derivative (EMD) plus CAF exhibited superior results.

CONCLUSIONS

SCTG+CAF can be considered the gold standard for the treatment of single GRD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of two types of xenogeneic matrices to treat single gingival recessions: A randomized clinical trial

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.

Comparison between a xenogeneic dermal matrix and connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

To compare the outcomes of modified coronally advanced flap (mCAF) combined with either xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) or connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two patients, in whom 130 maxillary (MAGRs) of type (RT1) were found, were randomly allocated to the two groups. Clinical, esthetic, and patient-centered outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-treatment.

RESULT

Group CAF+ CTG exhibited a higher mean root coverage value (mRC) (91.79%) (primary outcome variable) than group CAF+XDM (80.19%) without statistically significant difference at 12 months (p=0.06). The control group also had significantly higher percentage of teeth in which complete root coverage (CRC) and mean gain of gingival thickness (GT) were achieved, than the test group (p<0.05). With respect to patient-centered outcomes, patients of the test group reported having experienced significantly less pain than those of the control group until 7 days (p<0.05). Both surgical approaches were capable of significantly decreasing dentin hypersensitivity (p<0.05). No difference between groups was found in the esthetic score analysis (p>0.05). Mean surgical time was lower in the test group (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The two treatments showed similar mRC. However, CAF+CTG was superior to CAF+XDM in providing CRC and in gaining GT. CAF+XDM demonstrated advantages over CAF+CTG with regard to patient morbidity and surgical time.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Application of XDM provided a better patient experience and shortened the time to recovery after coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions. However, CTG resulted in improved percentages of complete root coverage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) number: RBR-974c9j.