Comparative evaluation of surgical modalities for coverage of gingival recession: An Armed Forces Medical College perspective

BACKGROUND

Esthetics represents an inseparable part of today's oral therapy, and several procedures have been proposed to preserve or enhance it. Gingival recessions may cause hypersensitivity, impaired esthetics and root caries. Keeping in mind patient's desire for improved esthetics and other related problems, every effort should be made to achieve complete root coverage.

METHODS

Different types of modalities have been introduced to treat gingival recession including displaced flaps, free gingival graft, connective tissue graft, different type of barrier membranes and combination of different techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the commonly used techniques for gingival recession coverage and evaluate the results obtained. 73 subjects were selected for the present study who were randomly divided into four groups and were followed at baseline and 180 days where following parameters were recorded: (a) Assessment of gingival recession depth (RD); (b) Assessment of pocket depth (PD); (c) Assessment of clinical attachment level (CAL) and (d) Assessment of width of attached gingiva (WAG).

RESULTS

Results of this study showed statistically significant reduction of gingival recession, with concomitant attachment gain, following treatment with all tested surgical techniques. However, SCTG with CAF technique showed the highest percentage gain in coverage of recession depth as well as gain in keratinized gingiva. Similar results were obtained with CAF alone. The use of GTR and other techniques showed less predictable coverage and gain in keratinized gingiva.

CONCLUSION

Connective tissue grafts were statistically significantly superior to guided tissue regeneration for improvement in gingival recession reduction.

Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes

BACKGROUND

The current interest in the assessment of Clinical attachment level (CAL) has stimulated recent introduction of novel periodontal probes. CAL is currently the gold standard for diagnosis and monitoring of periodontal disease. The errors inherent to the use of a periodontal probe are variation in probing force, visual errors in identifying the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), relative attachment level landmarks, fluctuations in gingival inflammation and misrecording measurements. The present study has been undertaken to compare the accuracy of measuring probing depth (PD) and CAL using Florida probe and Williams probe.

METHODS

After random selection of sixty subjects PD and CAL were measured at mandibular first molars region using Williams probe, Florida probe and CEJ probe by two different examiners. The measurements recorded by using three probes were subjected to statistical analysis for comparison of accuracy and reproducibility.

RESULTS

Difference in mean PD with Williams probe and Florida probe were statistically significant with p value of .000. Similarly the CAL measurement achieved by Williams probe and CEJ probe showed significant different results. More consistent results were seen with Florida probe and CEJ probe when the measurements of PD and CAL were done by two different examiners.

CONCLUSION

Florida probe and CEJ probe have been shown to be more accurate and were found to be more consistent which were reproducible by two independent examiners.