Guided tissue regeneration-based root coverage with a platelet concentrate graft: a 3-year follow-up case series

Clinical Efficacy of Concentrated Growth Factors for the Management of Marginal Tissue Recession: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review existing scientific literature to determine, compare, and evaluate whether concentrated growth factors (CGF) or connective tissue grafts (CTG) is a better treatment alternative for patients with marginal tissue recession (MTR).

METHODS

Electronic databases like PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were screened from the last 20 years reporting treatment of MTR using CGF or CTG and other techniques. Periodontal parameters like probing depth, clinical attachment level, recession depth, recession width, keratinized tissue width, root coverage, increase in gingival thickness and plaque index, and gingival index were compared. Standardized mean difference was used as a summary statistic measure with a random effect model and P value <0.05 as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Six studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only 4 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through standardized mean difference signifies that CGF was superior to CTG in the reduction of probing depth, gingival index, and plaque index and gain in clinical attachment level while CTG was superior in reducing the recession depth and recession width. Both the procedures had an overall equal effect on keratinized tissue width and root coverage, but these differences were statistically insignificant ( P >0.05). Publication bias through the funnel plot showed symmetric distribution without systematic heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that treatment of MTR with CTG or CGF resulted in clinically favorable outcomes, but no statistically significant differences was observed between these 2 procedures regarding the outcome.

The influence of tobacco smoking on the outcomes achieved by root coverage procedures: An updated systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This updated version of a systematic review (SR) originally published in 2009 evaluated the effect of smoking on the clinical outcomes achieved with root coverage (RC) procedures in the treatment of gingival recession (GR) defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This SR includes randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and case series with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Eligible studies involved GR defects without interproximal tissue loss submitted to RC procedures, as well as outcome measures from smokers (i.e., those smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day at baseline) and nonsmokers, recorded separately. Three electronic databases were searched up to March 31, 2024. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted thoroughly.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies reporting on 181 smokers and 162 nonsmokers, submitted to different RC procedures, were included. Half of these trials were originally included in the 2009 SR, whereas the other half (six studies) were included in this update. Nonsmokers experienced greater reductions in GR and gains in clinical attachment level compared to smokers. Pooled estimates comparing smokers and nonsmokers who received coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) + CAF showed that nonsmokers achieved greater mean root coverage (MRC) in both treatments. Significant differences in MRC of 10.85% (95% CI, 1.92 to 19.77) and 22.04 (95% CI, 14.25 to 29.83), favoring nonsmokers, were identified for CAF and SCTG + CAF, respectively. Similarly, nonsmokers treated with SCTG + CAF displayed superior number of sites exhibiting complete root coverage (CRF) when compared with smokers (risk ratio, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.73 to 9.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking negatively impacts the outcomes of RC procedures, particularly those achieved by SCTG-based procedures.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Smoking was linked to poorer RC outcomes. These outcomes highlight the critical need to integrate smoking cessation into periodontal treatment plans.

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.

Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop

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.

Subepithelial connective tissue graft with and without the use of plasma rich in growth factors for treating root exposure

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency of the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) with and without plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF) in the treatment of gingival recessions.

Methods

Twenty bilateral buccal gingival Miller's Class I and II recessions were selected. Ten of the recessions were treated with SCTG and PRGF (test group). The rest ten of the recessions were treated with SCTG (control group). The clinical parameters including recession depth (RD), percentage of root coverage (RC), mucogingival junction (MGJ) position, clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD) were measured at the baseline, and 1 and 3 months later. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

After 3 months, both groups showed a significant improvement in all of the mentioned criteria except PD. Although the amount of improvement was better in the SCTG+PRGF group than the SCTG only group, this difference was not statistically significant. The mean RC was 70.85±12.57 in the test group and 75.83±24.68 in the control group.

Conclusions

Both SCTG+PRGF and SCTG only result in favorable clinical outcomes, but the added benefit of PRGF is not evident.