LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,415,508
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,291,305
Fathiazar, Alireza, Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya, Sayar, Ferena. (1401). A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23(Supplement-September-2022), 402-409. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2021.90830.1535
Alireza Fathiazar; Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi; Ferena Sayar. "A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23, Supplement-September-2022, 1401, 402-409. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2021.90830.1535
Fathiazar, Alireza, Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya, Sayar, Ferena. (1401). 'A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 23(Supplement-September-2022), pp. 402-409. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2021.90830.1535
Fathiazar, Alireza, Shariatmadar Ahmadi, Roya, Sayar, Ferena. A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1401; 23(Supplement-September-2022): 402-409. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2021.90830.1535

A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage

Journal of Dentistry
مقاله 12، دوره 23، Supplement-September-2022، آذر 2022، صفحه 402-409    اصل مقاله (533.69 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/dentjods.2021.90830.1535
نویسندگان
Alireza Fathiazar1؛ Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi2؛ Ferena Sayar* 2
1Dept. of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
2Dept. of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده
Statement of the Problem: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold standard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure.  The potential benefits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treatment for root coverage can be investigated.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG.
Materials and Method: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + connective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodontal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data.
Results: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups (p Value<0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW (p Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months).
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Gingival Recession؛ Connective tissue؛ Collagen matrix
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  • Cardaropoli D, Tamagnone L, Roffredo A, Gaveglio L. Treatment of gingival recession defects using coronally advanced flap with a porcine collagen matrix compared to coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Peridontol. 2012; 83: 321-328.
  • Lai PC, Greenwell H. Root Coverage Procedures for Multiple Recession Defects. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2017; 4: 97-104.
  • Oates TW, Robinson M, Gunsolley JC. Surgical therapies for the treatment of gingival recession. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003; 8: 303-320.
  • Schmitt CM, Matta RE, Moest T, Humann J, Gammel L, Neukam FW, et al. Soft tissue volume alterations after connective tissue grafting at teeth: the subepithelial autologous connective tissue graft versus a porcine collagen matrix–a pre‐clinical volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2016; 43: 609-617.
  • Miller Jr PD. A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 1985; 5: 8-13.
  • Graziani F, Gennai S, Roldán S, Discepoli N, Buti J, Madianos P, et al. Efficacy of periodontal plastic procedures in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41: 63-76.
  • Aroca S, Molnár B, Windisch P, Gera I, Salvi GE, Nikolidakis D, et al. Treatment of multiple adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions with a Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2013; 40: 713-720.
  • Ramachandra SS, Rana R, Reetika S, Jithendra KD. Options to avoid the second surgical site: a review of literature. Cell Tissue Bank. 2014; 15: 297-305.
  • Zafiropoulos GG, Deli G, Hoffmann O, John G. Changes of the peri-implant soft tissue thickness after grafting with a collagen matrix. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2016; 20: 441-445.
  • Matoh U, Petelin M, Gašperšic R. Split-Mouth Comparison of Coronally Advanced Flap with Connective Tissue Graft or Collagen Matrix for Treatment of Isolated Gingival Recessions. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2019; 39: 439-446.
  • Chevalier G, Cherkaoui S, Kruk H, Bensaïd X, Danan M. Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix Versus Connective Tissue Graft: Case Series of Various Gingival Recession Treatments. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2017; 37: 117-123.
  • Manjunath RS, Rana A, Sarkar A. Gingival biotype assessment in a healthy periodontium: transgingival probing method. JCDR. 2015; 9: 66.
  • Rotundo R, Pini-Prato G. Use of a new collagen matrix (mucograft) for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2012; 32: 413-419.
  • Zucchelli G, Amore C, Sforza NM, Montebugnoli L, De*Sanctis M. Bilaminar techniques for the treatment of recession‐type defects. A comparative clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 2003; 30: 862-870.
  • Edel A. Clinical evaluation of free connective tissue grafts used to increase the width of keratinized gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 1974; 185-196.
  • Tarquini G. Coronally Advanced Flap Technique to Treat Class I and II Gingival Recession in Combination with Connective Tissue Graft or Equine Collagen Matrix: A Retrospective Study. Int J Periodont Rest Dent. 2017; 37: 217-223.
  • Amine K, El Amrani Y, Chemlali S, Kissa J. Alternatives to connective tissue graft in the treatment of localized gingival recessions: A systematic review. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 119: 25-32.
  • McGuire MK, Scheyer ET. Long‐term results comparing xenogeneic collagen matrix and autogenous connective tissue grafts with coronally advanced flaps for treatment of dehiscence‐type recession defects. J Periodontol. 2016; 87: 221-227.
  • Kasaj A, Levin L, Stratul SI, Götz H, Schlee M, Rütters CB, et al. The influence of various rehydration protocols on biomechanical properties of different acellular tissue matrices. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1303-1315.
  • Taba M, Suzuki K, Irie M, Faria P, Messora M, Palioto D, et al. Collagen matrix (Mucoderm) as an alternative for the treatment of gingival recessions. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2018; 29: 315.
  • Vedyaeva AP, Brailovskaya TV, Tarasenko SV, Bulkina NV, Garibian EA, Nebylitsin IV. Comparative clinicoradiologic research study of the tunnel plastics of multiple gingival recessions with Autograft and Xenogen Collagen matrix. J Adv Pharm Edu Res. 2020; 10: 99.
  • Barbeck M, Lorenz J, Kubesch A, Böhm N, Booms P, Choukroun J, et al. Porcine dermis-derived collagen membranes induce implantation bed vascularization via multinucleated giant cells: a physiological reaction? J Oral Implantol. 2015; 41: 238-251.
  • Dai A, Huang JP, Ding PH, Chen LL. Long‐term stability of root coverage procedures for single gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐ J Clin Periodontol. 2019; 46: 572-585.
  • Papi P, Pompa G. The use of a novel porcine derived acellular dermal matrix (mucoderm) in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: preliminary results of a prospective pilot cohort study. BioMed Res Int. 2018; 7: 640-651.
  • Pabst AM, Lehmann KM, Walter C, Krüger M, Stratul SI, Kasaj A. Influence of porcine-derived collagen matrix on endothelial progenitor cells: an in vitro J Odontol. 2016; 104: 19-26.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,539
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,212


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب