BACKGROUND: The role of vigorous root planing in the surgical treatment of gingival recession was recently questioned. The aim of the present randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study was to compare the effectiveness, in terms of root coverage, of hand and ultrasonic root instrumentation in combination with a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of isolated-type recession defects. METHODS:Eleven systemically and periodontally healthy subjects with bilateral recession defects (> or = 3 mm) of similar (< or = 1 mm) depth affecting contralateral teeth were enrolled in the study. Only Miller Class I gingival recession with no deep cervical abrasion or root caries/demineralization were included in the study. Control root exposures were treated with curets, whereas test roots were instrumented with ultrasonic piezoelectric devices. Randomization for test and control treatment was performed by a coin toss immediately prior to surgery. All recessions were treated with a coronally advanced flap surgical technique. The clinical reevaluation was made 6 months after surgery. RESULTS:The two approaches resulted in a high percentage of root coverage (95.4% in the control group and 84.2% in the test group) and complete root coverage (82% in the control group and 55% in the test teeth), with no statistically significant difference between them. Clinical attachment level gains were clinically significant in both groups (3.36 +/- 0.92 mm in the control group and 2.90 +/- 0.70 mm in the test group), with no statistically significant difference between them. The increase in keratinized tissue height was statistically significant in both groups (0.55 +/- 0.52 mm in the control group and 0.36 +/- 0.67 mm in the test group), with no difference between them. CONCLUSIONS:The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority, in terms of root-coverage results, for hand instruments over ultrasonic treatment of the root surface in combination with coronally advanced flap mucogingival surgery. Further studies of longer-term duration and larger sample size could help to establish the superiority of one form of root instrumentation in conjunction with root-coverage surgery.
Zucchelli G, Mounssif I, Stefanini M, Mele M, Montebugnoli L, Sforza NM (2009). Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in combination with root-coverage surgery: a comparative controlled randomized clinical trial. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 80, 577-585 [10.1902/jop.2009.080485].
Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation in combination with root-coverage surgery: a comparative controlled randomized clinical trial.
ZUCCHELLI, GIOVANNI;Mounssif I;STEFANINI, MARTINA;MONTEBUGNOLI, LUCIO;
2009
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of vigorous root planing in the surgical treatment of gingival recession was recently questioned. The aim of the present randomized controlled split-mouth clinical study was to compare the effectiveness, in terms of root coverage, of hand and ultrasonic root instrumentation in combination with a coronally advanced flap for the treatment of isolated-type recession defects. METHODS:Eleven systemically and periodontally healthy subjects with bilateral recession defects (> or = 3 mm) of similar (< or = 1 mm) depth affecting contralateral teeth were enrolled in the study. Only Miller Class I gingival recession with no deep cervical abrasion or root caries/demineralization were included in the study. Control root exposures were treated with curets, whereas test roots were instrumented with ultrasonic piezoelectric devices. Randomization for test and control treatment was performed by a coin toss immediately prior to surgery. All recessions were treated with a coronally advanced flap surgical technique. The clinical reevaluation was made 6 months after surgery. RESULTS:The two approaches resulted in a high percentage of root coverage (95.4% in the control group and 84.2% in the test group) and complete root coverage (82% in the control group and 55% in the test teeth), with no statistically significant difference between them. Clinical attachment level gains were clinically significant in both groups (3.36 +/- 0.92 mm in the control group and 2.90 +/- 0.70 mm in the test group), with no statistically significant difference between them. The increase in keratinized tissue height was statistically significant in both groups (0.55 +/- 0.52 mm in the control group and 0.36 +/- 0.67 mm in the test group), with no difference between them. CONCLUSIONS:The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority, in terms of root-coverage results, for hand instruments over ultrasonic treatment of the root surface in combination with coronally advanced flap mucogingival surgery. Further studies of longer-term duration and larger sample size could help to establish the superiority of one form of root instrumentation in conjunction with root-coverage surgery.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
