Tunnel technique with enamel matrix derivative in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft compared with connective tissue graft alone for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial

Comparison of tunnel and VISTA techniques for multiple gingival recession treatment: A systematic literature review

Background

Gingival recession (GR) has become one of the most common concerns in oral mucosal diseases. It causes discomfort such as root hypersensitivity, root caries, and aesthetic problems, leading to the development of various surgical techniques to address GRs. This study compared the non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques in treating multiple GRs.

Methods

A literature search related to the efficiency of non-advanced tunnel and m-VISTA techniques was conducted in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (ScienceDirect), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting periodontal parameters published in the recent four years (2019-2023) were included and assessed for the risk of bias. All in vitro, animal, pilot studies, case reports, and case series were excluded.

Results

Five RCTs were included with 195 cases of GRs. Comparing the two techniques revealed a significant increase in keratinized tissue width (KTW) from baseline to 6 months (-1.4 mm), in clinical attachment level (CAL) (-2.65 mm), and in recession depth (-2.7 mm) for the tunnel technique. On the other hand, a significant increase in GR width (-2.26 mm) was found in the m-VISTA group. Finally, there were no significant differences in probing depths.

Conclusion

Both techniques were effective in root coverage and may be valuable for treating multiple GRs.

Tunnel technique with cross-linked hyaluronic acid in addition to subepithelial connective tissue graft, compared with connective tissue graft alone, for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: 6-month outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in clinical and esthetic outcomes in the treatment of multiple gingival recession types 1 and 2, using the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) combined with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), with or without cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 24 patients with 266 multiple gingival recessions (GR) were enrolled in the study (133 recessions per group). MCAT was combined with SCTG and HA on the test side, while MCAT with SCTG was used on the control side. Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months post-operatively. Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used to assess patient-rated outcomes, and the root coverage esthetic score (RES) was used for professional esthetic evaluation.

RESULTS

No significant improvement in root coverage was observed as a result of adding HA. After 6 months, mean root coverage (MRC) was 85% for SCTG + HA group and 83% for SCTG group (p = 0.9819). Complete root coverage (CRC) was observed in 91% (test) and 93% (control) of the cases (p = 0.9001). Professional assessment of soft tissue texture (STT) using RES showed a significant difference (0.94 versus 0.69, p = 0.0219) in favor of the experimental group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments were similarly effective in treating multiple GRs and led to comparable improvements in clinical parameters. However, application of HA improved the appearance of soft tissue texture.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Adjunctive application of HA in the MCAT + SCTG procedure may improve STT results.

Efficacy of Tunnel Technique (TUN) versus Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) in the Management of Multiple Gingival Recession Defects: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

We systematically assessed the efficacy of tunnel technique (TUN) vs. coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the management of multiple gingival recession defects in adults.

Methods

Five databases were searched until September 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TUN vs. CAF; grafts of interest were acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and connective tissue graft (CTG). Primary outcomes were root coverage (RC) and complete root coverage (CRC). Secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth (PD), and recession coverage (REC). Effect measures were risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with their confidence intervals (95% CI). Inverse variance methods and random-effects model meta-analyses were used. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft were performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology.

Results

Five RCTs (n = 173) were included, with a follow-up of 6 months for all outcomes. In comparison to CAF, TUN did not significantly reduce CRC (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.002-176.7; p = 0.51) and did not increase RC (MD 0.99%; 95% CI -6.7 to 8.6; p = 0.80). In comparison to CAF, TUN showed no significant reduction of secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses by type of graft showed no differences in comparison to primary analyses for primary and secondary outcomes. Three RCTs had a high risk of bias, and five RCTs had very low quality of evidence for all outcomes.

Conclusions

In adults with gingival recessions, TUN had similar primary and secondary outcomes in comparison with CAF. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft did not affect main conclusions. More RCTs with better design are needed to further characterize the effects of TUN vs. CAF in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects.

Recession coverage using the modified coronally advanced tunnel and connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative: 5-year results of a randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the 5-year results of single and multiple recession type (RT) 1 and 2 (Miller I to III) recessions treated with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) and connective tissue graft (CTG) with or without an enamel matrix derivative (EMD). The main outcome variable was the stability of obtained root coverage from 6 months to 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 24 patients, both complete and mean root coverage (CRC and MRC) and gain of keratinised tissue (KT) were assessed at 6 months and 5 years after recession coverage by means of MCAT and CTG with or without EMD. Aesthetic outcomes after 5 years were evaluated using the root coverage aesthetic score (RES).

RESULTS

At 5 years, 24 patients with a total of 43 recessions were evaluated. Eight patients (57.14%) of the test and 6 (60.0%) of the control group showed complete root coverage. MRC revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups, with 73.87 ± 26.83% (test) and 75.04 ± 22.06% (control), respectively. KT increased from 1.14 ± 0.57 mm to 3.07 ± 2.27 mm in the test group and from 1.24 ± 0.92 mm to 3.02 ± 1.55 mm in the control group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of single and multiple RT 1 and 2 recessions by means of MCAT and CTG with or without EMD yielded comparable clinical improvements which could be maintained over a period of 5 years. The additional use of EMD did not influence the clinical outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of MCAT + CTG yielded successful coverage of single and multiple RT 1 and 2 gingival recessions, while the additional application of EMD did not seem to influence the results.

Efficacy of biologics in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of three biologics, namely autologous blood-derived products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivatives (EMD) and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB (rhPDGF-BB), in root coverage and gingival augmentation therapy.

METHODS

The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285917). After study selection, data of interest were extracted. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to assess the effect of different surgical interventions on the main clinical outcomes of interest (i.e., mean root coverage [MRC%], complete root coverage [CRC%], keratinized tissue width [KTW], gingival thickness [GT] change, and recession depth [RD] reduction).

RESULTS

A total of 48 trials reported in 55 articles were selected. All studies reported on the treatment of gingival recession defects for root coverage purposes. Forty-six treatment arms from 24 trials were included in the NMA. These arms consisted of treatment with coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone, EMD + CAF, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) + CAF, and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) + CAF. Regarding MRC%, SCTG+CAF was associated with a significant higher estimate (13.41%, 95% CI [8.06-18.75], P <  0.01), while EMD+CAF (6.68%, 95% CI [-0.03 to 13.4], P = 0.061) and PRF+CAF (1.03%, 95% CI [-5.65 to 7.72], P = 0.71) failed to show statistically significant differences compared with CAF alone (control group) or with each other. Similarly, only SCTG+CAF led to a significantly higher CRC% (14.41%, 95% CI [4.21 to 24.61], P < 0.01), while treatment arms EMD + CAF (13.48%, 95% CI [-3.34 to 30.32], P = 0.11) and PRF+CAF (-0.91%, 95% CI [-15.38, 13.57], p = 0.81) did not show significant differences compared with CAF alone or with each other. Differences in the CI of PRF+CAF (symmetrical around a zero adjunctive effect) and EMD+CAF (non-symmetrical) suggest that EMD could have some additional value compared with PRF. Treatment with SCTG+CAF led to a statistically significant higher RD reduction (-0.39 mm, 95% CI [-0.55 to 0.22], P < 0.01), however EMD+CAF (-0.13 mm, 95% CI [-0.29 to 0.01], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (-0.06 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.09], P = 0.39) failed to show significant differences compared with CAF or with each other. While SCTG+CAF was associated with a statistically significant higher gain of KTW (0.71 mm, 95% CI [0.48 to 0.93], P < 0.01), EMD+CAF (0.24 mm, 95% CI [-0.02 to 0.51], P = 0.08) and PRF+CAF (0.08 mm, 95% CI [-0.23 to 0.41], P = 0.58) did not result into significant changes compared with CAF alone or with each other. Regarding the use of rhPDGF-BB+CAF, although available studies have reported equivalent results compared with SCTG+CAF, evidence is very limited.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ABPs, EMD, or rhPDGF-BB in conjunction with a CAF for root coverage purposes is safe and generally promotes significant improvements respective to baseline clinical parameters. However, the adjunctive use of ABPs and EMD does not provide substantial additional improvements in terms of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures to those achieved using CAF alone, when baseline KTW is >2 mm. Both PRF+CAF and EMD+CAF rendered inferior MRC%, CRC%, RD reduction, and KTW gain compared with SCTG+CAF, which should still be considered the gold-standard in root coverage therapy. Although some studies have reported equivalent results for rhPDGF-BB+CAF compared with the gold-standard intervention, limited evidence precludes formal comparisons with CAF or SCTG+CAF that could be extrapolated to guide clinical practice.

Bone Remodeling during Orthodontic Movement of Lower Incisors-Narrative Review

The tooth movement in the alveolus is possible due to bone remodeling. This process could be the risk factor for the formation of gingival recessions-the most common side effects of orthodontic therapy. Gingival recessions are found 5.8-11.5% more frequently among the orthodontically treated patients. What is more, anterior mandibular teeth are the ones most prone to gingival recession dehiscences and fenestrations. The aim of this narrative review was to evaluate, based on CBCT (Cone beam computed tomography) scans, the changes in the alveolar bone of lower incisors in adolescent and adult patients after orthodontic tooth movements. From the pool of 108 publications, a total of 15 fulfilled the criteria of this review. Both retrospective and prospective longitudinal studies-using CBCT or CT (Computed Topography) and evaluating alveolar bone changes in mandibular incisors during orthodontic treatment performed before and after teeth movement-were included. In the group of growing patients, either proclination or retroclination of mandibular incisors led to increase of the distance from CEJ (cementoenamel junction) to marginal bone crest. The difference in bone loss was greater on the lingual side of the incisors in both types of tooth movement. The results were similar for adults patients. The thickness of the alveolar bone was reduced after proclination (total bone thickness) among growing and non-growing patients and retraction (lingual and buccal) of lower anterior teeth in the group of growing patients. The only improvement was measured for buccal thickness of mandibular incisor in bimaxillary protrusion patients treated with extraction therapy. The control of retraction movement (more root than crown movement) enhanced preservation on bone height and thickness. In order to minimize possible deterioration and place teeth in the center of alveolus, CBCT monitoring and scrupulous clinical evaluation are recommended.

The Use of Collagen Matrix in the Treatment of Gingival Recession—A Pilot Study

Background. Gingival recessions are common mucogingival deformities and conditions around teeth, which are described as the apical migration of tissues in the relation to the cementoenamel junction. One of the types of graft materials used to treat these recessions is the collagen graft material. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the collagen matrix combined with the coronally advanced flap surgery method to cover dental recessions, after a 12 month follow-up period. Methods. The following parameters were assessed in 20 patients, with 38 single or multiple Miller class I or II gingival recessions: depth of the recession—RD; width of the recession—RW; height of the keratinized tissue—HKT; and thickness of the keratinized gingivae—GT. The percentage of the root coverage after 12 months was also calculated. Results. There was a significant difference in the RD and RW values before and after the procedure. On average, the RD decreased by 3.39 mm, and the RW by 3.87 mm. Moreover, the values of the GT and HKT, before and after the treatment, significantly increased by 0.98 mm and 1.13 mm, respectively. The partial root coverage was 43.48%, and the total root coverage was 56.52%. Conclusion. The use of the collagen matrix with a split thickness gingival flap to cover the gingival recessions is a predictable and effective method when the clinician carefully follows the recommendation of the producer, which was confirmed in a 1 year follow-up with good clinical results.

Modified coronally advanced tunnel versus epithelialized free gingival graft technique in gingival phenotype modification: a comparative randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The gingival thickness (GT) and keratinized tissue (KT) height are defined as the gingival phenotype. Both the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique (MCAT) and free gingival grafts (FGG) are used in modifying the gingival phenotype. This study aims to compare MCAT and FGG in gingival phenotype modification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty recessions in 50 patients with thin and insufficient keratinized tissue at the anterior mandible were treated with either MCAT or FGG. GT, KT height, recession depth, recession width, probing depth, and clinical attachment level were evaluated at baseline and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. GT change, KT change, root coverage (RC), clinical attachment gain, and complete root coverage (CRC) were calculated. The wound healing index, tissue appearance, patient expectations, aesthetic, and dentin hypersensitivity were assessed at baseline and 6 months.

RESULTS

All periodontal variables showed significant change from baseline to 12 months in both groups (p < 0.05). While FGG resulted in more KT change (p < 0.001), all MCAT sites showed at least 2 mm KT change in 12 months. MCAT resulted in greater GT change (p < 0.05) and RC (p < 0.003). In contrast, there was no significant inter-group CRC difference (p = 0.523). All patient-based variables were favorable to MCAT (p < 0.05), except dentin hypersensitivity (p = 0.225).

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques were successful in terms of gingival phenotype modification in the anterior mandible. Additional GT increase, RC, and patient-based outcomes favored MCAT, though KT change proved greater with FGG.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians may choose MCAT for higher GT increase whereas FGG for more KTC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04690140 and date: 12/26/2020.

Connective Tissue Graft with or without Enamel Matrix Derivative for Treating Gingival Recession Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the root coverage outcomes of using a connective tissue graft (CTG) with and without the application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD).

METHODOLOGY

An electronic search was performed up to July 2020 in 4 databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central. Human clinical studies with data on comparing outcomes of root coverage using CTG with and without the application of EMD were included. Meta-analyses for the recorded parameters were performed and the weighted mean difference (WMD) between the 2 groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported.

RESULTS

Nine clinical studies were selected for inclusion in this review. The WMD of clinical attachment level gain was 0.78 mm (95% CI of 0.23-1.34 mm, P = .005) and the WMD of recession depth reduction was 0.28 mm (95% CI of 0.06-0.51 mm, P = .01), favoring the CTG + EMD approach. However, the comparisons for the percentage of complete root coverage and mean root coverage between the 2 approaches were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of a CTG with and without the application of EMD in root coverage procedures achieved a similar percentage of complete root coverage and mean root coverage, the addition of EMD to CTG may improve the outcome of recession depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain.

Regenerative Potential of Enamel Matrix Protein Derivative and Acellular Dermal Matrix for Gingival Recession: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of using a combination of enamel matrix protein derivative and acellular dermal matrix in comparison to acellular dermal matrix alone for treating gingival recessions. Methods: The Cochrane Library (Wiley), PubMed by Medline (NLM), Medline (EBSCO), and Embase (Ovid) databases were searched for entries up to April 2020. Only clinical trials were included. Primary outcomes were root coverage (%), changes in keratinized tissue width and recession (mm). Meta-analysis was conducted for root coverage, changes in keratinized tissue width, recession, clinical attachment level and probing depth. Results: Four studies were selected for the analysis. In primary outcomes, root coverage, change in keratinized tissue width and recession analysis showed a mean difference of 4.99% (p = 0.11), 0.20 mm (p = 0.14) and 0.13 mm (p = 0.23) respectively between the two groups. Secondary outcomes analysis also exhibited a statistically insignificant difference between the test and control group with mean difference of 0.11 mm (p = 0.32) in clinical attachment level gain and -0.03 mm (p = 0.29) in probing depth reduction analysis. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, enamel matrix protein derivative combined with acellular dermal matrix used for treating gingival recession defects resulted in no beneficial effect clinically than acellular dermal matrix only.