We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Patient-reported outcomes and aesthetic evaluation of root coverage procedures: a 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2016 December
AIM: To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), aesthetics and stability of root coverage procedures from a previous 6-month RCT after 1 year.
MATERIAL & METHODS: Forty-five patients (90 recessions) had received a coronally advanced flap (CAF = control) only or a xenogeneic collagen matrix in addition (CAF + CMX = test). Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used for PROMs and the root coverage aesthetic score (RES) for professional aesthetic evaluations.
RESULTS: VAS scores (patient satisfaction) amounted to 8.58 ± 1.86 (test) versus 8.38 ± 2.46 (control). Six patients preferred CAF + CMX concerning surgical procedure and aesthetics, six preferred CAF and 29 were equally satisfied. RES was 7.85 ± 2.42 for the test group versus 7.34 ± 2.90 for the controls. Root coverage (RC) was 76.28% for test and 75.05% for control defects. The mean increase in keratinized tissue width was higher in test (from 1.97 to 3.02 mm) than in controls (from 2.00 to 2.64 mm) (p = 0.0413). Likewise, test sites showed more gain in gingival thickness (0.52 mm) than control sites (0.27 mm) (p = 0.0023). Compared to 6 months, clinical outcomes were stable.
CONCLUSIONS: Results for PROMs, RES and RC did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Thickness and width of keratinized tissue were enhanced following CAF + CMX compared to CAF alone.
MATERIAL & METHODS: Forty-five patients (90 recessions) had received a coronally advanced flap (CAF = control) only or a xenogeneic collagen matrix in addition (CAF + CMX = test). Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used for PROMs and the root coverage aesthetic score (RES) for professional aesthetic evaluations.
RESULTS: VAS scores (patient satisfaction) amounted to 8.58 ± 1.86 (test) versus 8.38 ± 2.46 (control). Six patients preferred CAF + CMX concerning surgical procedure and aesthetics, six preferred CAF and 29 were equally satisfied. RES was 7.85 ± 2.42 for the test group versus 7.34 ± 2.90 for the controls. Root coverage (RC) was 76.28% for test and 75.05% for control defects. The mean increase in keratinized tissue width was higher in test (from 1.97 to 3.02 mm) than in controls (from 2.00 to 2.64 mm) (p = 0.0413). Likewise, test sites showed more gain in gingival thickness (0.52 mm) than control sites (0.27 mm) (p = 0.0023). Compared to 6 months, clinical outcomes were stable.
CONCLUSIONS: Results for PROMs, RES and RC did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Thickness and width of keratinized tissue were enhanced following CAF + CMX compared to CAF alone.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app