A Modified Surgical Flap for Root Coverage in Association with Grafting Materials

Allogenic Acellular Dermal Matrix and Xenogeneic Dermal Matrix as Connective Tissue Graft Substitutes for Long-Term Stability Gingival Recession Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Connective tissue graft (CTG) serves as a gold standard for gingival recession therapy. Yet the availability of CTG is limited, and it increases patient morbidity. Allogenic acellular dermal matrix (AADM) and xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) have been proven to be effective substitutes of CTG although the long-term stability is unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term stability outcome of gingival recession therapy using AADM and XDM compared to CTG. This study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were extracted independently from several online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase). Five of 233 publications were included for final qualitative analysis and meta-analysis focusing on the mean difference of clinical parameters such as recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), tissue thickness (TT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and mean root coverage (MRC). Meta-analyses of RD, RW, CAL, TT, KTW, and MRC display an overall mean of 0.2 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.45 to -0.05), 0.29 mm (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.08), 0.2 mm (95% CI: -0.69 to 0.29), 0.25 mm (95% CI: -0.53 to 0.03), 0.26 mm (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.02), and 9.19% (95% CI: -13.95 to -4.43]), respectively, favoring the CTG. PD was the only parameter that favored the AADM or XDM with an overall mean of 0.03 mm (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.11). In all, if the long-term stability is the goal, the CTG is considered superior for gingival recession therapy. However, if it is contraindicated, the AADM and XDM might be considered as alternatives.

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.

Effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix graft with a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of Miller Class I/II single gingival recession with thin gingival phenotype: study protocol for a split-mouth randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Gingival recession is one of the most common mucogingival deformities requiring surgical correction. The American Academy of Periodontology Regeneration Workshop recommended connective tissue graft (CTG) combined with coronally advanced flap (CAF) for the treatment of Miller Class I and II single-tooth gingival recession. The disadvantages of harvesting autogenous tissue include postoperative bleeding, pain and discomfort at the donor site, restricted tissue supply, increased morbidity and prolonged operative times. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) contains undamaged collagen and elastin matrices that can be used as a substitute for CTG during root coverage procedures. However, the use of ADM is still controversial. The objective of this split-mouth; randomised, controlled, clinical study is to evaluate the long-term effects of ADM graft (ADMG) combined with CAF on root coverage, aesthetics and patient satisfaction for the treatment of single gingival recession with thin gingival phenotype.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Forty participants with bilateral Miller Class I/II gingival recession will be randomised to receive an ADMG on one side and CTG on the contralateral side, combined with CAF. Gingival recession depth, gingival recession width and keratinised tissue width will be measured at baseline, 2 weeks and 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Mean root coverage, complete root coverage, root coverage aesthetic score, colour change (∆E) and patient satisfaction will be assessed during follow-up visits.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The present study has received approval from the Ethics Committee of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology (PKUSSIRB-202054029). Data of this study will be registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Additionally, we will disseminate the results through scientific journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000033230.

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.

A randomized split mouth clinical study to compare the clinical outcomes of subepithelial connective graft and acellular dermal matrix in Miller's Class I recession coverage therapy

Background:

According to the American Association of Periodontology, subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is one the most reliable surgical technique available for the treatment of gingival recession (GR) with Miller's Class I defect. However, due to its various disadvantages, alternate grafts such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM) grafts have been introduced for recession coverage. The present study compares the clinical outcome of these two grafts in treating Miller's Class I GR.

Materials and Methods:

All the 15 patients participated in the study who had totally 30 bilateral Miller's Class I GR were divided randomly into SCTG group and ADM group each containing 15 defects. In the SCTG group, coronally advanced flap (CAF) with SCTG was performed, and in ADM group, CAF with ADM was done. Clinical parameters were measured on the day of surgery (baseline) and after 6 months. Data collected were statistically analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests.

Results:

The analysis of the data collected at the baseline and 6 months later showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the recorded clinical parameters such as probing pocket depth, clinical attachment loss, and GR depth. ADM group showed a better color match than the SCTG group, while SCTG group achieved more keratinized tissue width than ADM group.

Conclusion:

From the outcome of the current study, we can conclude that ADM is an efficient substitute for SCTG for treating Miller's Class I GR. However, additional studies with greater number of samples and lengthier follow-up periods are necessary to validate the present inference.

Clinical efficacy of xenogeneic and allogeneic 3D matrix in the management of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted to answer the following focused question based on PICO strategy: Is there any 3D matrix biomaterial used for root coverage of human Miller class I and II defects equivalent with the connective tissue graft in localized defects of at least 2 mm and 3 mm?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The search on electronic database included MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.gov, Web of Science, and New Zealand/Australian Clinical Trials. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared connective tissue graft (CTG) with at least one 3D matrix alone for root coverage in Class I and II Miller localized defects of at least 2 mm, with at least 6 months follow-up, were included in this systematic review.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were included for meta-analysis (12 compared CTG with acellular dermal matrix allograft and 2 compared CTG with Xenogenic Collagen Matrix). Relative root coverage showed no significant difference among the materials, for either 2 or 3 mm minimal recessions. For keratinized tissue width, on 2 mm recessions, CTG showed superiority above other biomaterials, but on 3 mm recessions, it seemed to have the same results. The percentage of recessions with complete root coverage for both 2 and 3 mm recessions showed similar results for all biomaterials.

CONCLUSIONS

With their limits, the present data concluded that CTG, acellular dermal matrix allograft, and xenogenic collagen matrix provided similar results for root coverage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To know if there is a 3D matrix with equivalent predictable results for root coverage, that we could avoid the morbidity of the connective tissue graft for these cases.

Root coverage stability with acellular dermal matrix in multiple gingival recessions in esthetic zone: A clinical case report with 12-year follow-up

The importance of surgical intervention for the maintenance of long-term results by root coverage of multiple gingival recessions in an esthetic area treated with a tissue substitute (acellular dermal matrix [ADM]-Alloderm^®) is widely required. The present case report highlights the effectiveness of the ADM for the treatment of multiple recession defects in a female patient with Class I and II gingival recession in relation to maxillary anterior associated with esthetics and dentin hypersensitivity demands. The root coverage rate for the anterior area showed greater value with 70% of coverage; at 90 days and 2 and 12 years of follow-up, it showed 70.5%, 79%, and 77%, respectively. Conversely, for the posterior area, these rates were 68.5%, 63%, and 57% for the same follow-up periods. Results regarding gain of keratinized tissue demonstrated superior values for the anterior area, namely 3.92, 3.34 and 3.22 mm at 90 days and 2 and 12 years. These values for the posterior area were 0.54 mm, 2.41, and 1.87 mm, respectively. These findings suggest that the tissue substitute Alloderm^® showed excellent long-term results for areas of multiple recessions, providing root coverage and stability of keratinized tissue gain. After this long period of evaluation, some local factors associated with recurrence of gingival recessions were detected, and a lack of proper periodontal maintenance care was observed. However, esthetic and functional outcomes achieved with surgical procedure were maintained.

Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12-year follow-up from a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) or Tunnel technique (TUN) in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nineteen of the original 24 patients contributing to a total number of 33 sites for CAF and 34 for TUN were available for the 12 years follow-up examination. Recession depth, mean root coverage (mRC), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT) were evaluated and compared with baseline values and 6-months results. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors related to the stability of the gingival margin.

RESULTS

A highly significant drop in mRC was observed for both groups from the 6 months timepoint to the 12 years recall (p < .001). While there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of Clinical Attachment Level (CAL), KTW, GT changes and Root Coverage Esthetic Score at each timepoint (p > .05). KTW ≥ 2 mm and GT ≥ 1.2 mm at 6-months were two predictors for stability of the gingival margin (p = .03 and p = .01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant relapse of the gingival margin of MAGRs treated with CAF or TUN + ADM was observed after 12 years.

Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession-type defects

BACKGROUND

Gingival recession is defined as the oral exposure of the root surface due to a displacement of the gingival margin apical to the cemento-enamel junction and it is regularly linked to the deterioration of dental aesthetics. Successful treatment of recession-type defects is based on the use of predictable root coverage periodontal plastic surgery (RCPPS) procedures. This review is an update of the original version that was published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of different root coverage procedures in the treatment of single and multiple recession-type defects.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 January 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (15 January 2018). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only of at least 6 months' duration evaluating recession areas (Miller's Class I or II ≥ 3 mm) and treated by means of RCPPS procedures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. We expressed results as random-effects models using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the body of evidence of our main comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 RCTs in the review. Of these, we assessed one as at low risk of bias, 12 as at high risk of bias and 35 as at unclear risk of bias. The results indicated a greater reduction in gingival recession for subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) + coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to guided tissue regeneration with resorbable membranes (GTR rm) + CAF (MD -0.37 mm; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13, P = 0.002; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in gingival recession reduction between acellular dermal matrix grafts (ADMG) + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between enamel matrix protein (EMP) + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Regarding clinical attachment level changes, GTR rm + CAF promoted additional gains compared to SCTG + CAF (MD 0.35; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63, P = 0.02; 3 studies; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) but there was insufficient evidence of a difference between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF or between EMP + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Greater gains in the keratinized tissue were found for SCTG + CAF when compared to EMP + CAF (MD -1.06 mm; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.76, P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 62 participants; low-quality evidence), and SCTG + CAF when compared to GTR rm + CAF (MD -1.77 mm; 95% CI -2.66 to -0.89, P < 0.0001; 3 studies; 98 participants; very low-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in keratinized tissue gain between ADMG + CAF and SCTG + CAF. Few data exist on aesthetic condition change related to patients' opinion and patients' preference for a specific procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Subepithelial connective tissue grafts, coronally advanced flap alone or associated with other biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration may be used as root coverage procedures for treating localised or multiple recession-type defects. The available evidence base indicates that in cases where both root coverage and gain in the width of keratinized tissue are expected, the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts shows a slight improvement in outcome. There is also some weak evidence suggesting that acellular dermal matrix grafts appear as the soft tissue substitute that may provide the most similar outcomes to those achieved by subepithelial connective tissue grafts. RCTs are necessary to identify possible factors associated with the prognosis of each RCPPS procedure. The potential impact of bias on these outcomes is unclear.

Acellular dermal matrix and subepithelial connective tissue grafts for root coverage: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether patients with gingival recession would benefit from an acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) in ways that are comparable to the gold standard of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ADMG to SCTG for the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession defects was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to March 2016 for controlled trials with minimum 6 months duration. The primary outcome was root coverage; secondary outcomes included attachment level change, keratinized tissue (KT) change, and patient-based outcomes. Both authors independently assessed the quality of each included trial and extracted the relevant data.

RESULTS

From 158 potential titles, 17 controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. There were no differences between ADMG and SCTG for mean root coverage, percent root coverage, and clinical attachment level gain. ADMG was statistically better than SCTG for gain in width of KT (-0.43 mm; 95% confidence interval: -0.72, -0.15). Only one study compared patient-based outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review found that an ADMG would be a suitable root coverage substitute for an SCTG when avoidance of the second surgical site is preferred.