Compartir
Título
Double lateral sliding bridge flap versus laterally closed tunnel for the treatment of single recessions in the mandibular anterior teeth: A pseudorandomized clinical trial
Autor(es)
Palabras clave
root coverage
esthetics
mandibular anterior teeth
double lateral sliding bridge flap
Clasificación UNESCO
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
Fecha de publicación
2022
Citación
Quispe-López, N., Sánchez-Santos, J., Delgado-Gregori, J., López-Malla Matute, J., López-Valverde, N., Zubizarreta-Macho, Á., ... & Montero, J. (2022). Double Lateral Sliding Bridge Flap versus Laterally Closed Tunnel for the Treatment of Single Recessions in the Mandibular Anterior Teeth: A Pseudorandomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(10), 2918.
Resumen
[EN]This study compard the clinical and esthetic results of the double lateralsliding bridge flap (DLSBF) and the laterally closed tunnel (LCT) techniques, with a subepithelial con-nective tissue graft (SCTG), for the treatment of single Miller class II-III recessions in the mandibularanterior teeth. (2) Methods: This pseudorandomized clinical trial evaluated 14 patients, 7 of whomwere part of the DLSBF + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 58.7 ± 24.0 months, and 7 ofwhom were in the LCT + SCTG group, with an average follow-up of 16.7 ± 3.3 months. Clinical andesthetic evaluations of the following parameters were performed and the results for the two groupswere compared: gingival recession depth, probing depth, keratinized tissue width, gingival thickness,percentage of root coverage and root coverage esthetic score. (3) Results: After the follow-up period,each technique provided evidence of a reduction in recession depth and clinical attachment level,as well as increased keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness, with statistically significantdifferences (p < 0.05). The analysis showed that gingival recession depth decreased less in the DLSBFgroup (4.3 ± 1.2 mm to 0.6 ± 1.1 mm) than it did in the LCT group (4.9 ± 1.1 mm to 0.1 ± 0.4 mm),but no significant difference was found between the two groups. Similarly, a greater reduction inthe clinical attachment level parameter was observed in the LCT group, while a greater increase ingingival thickness was observed in the DLSBF group. The presence of scars was the only parameterfor which statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two study groups were found.(4) Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it indicates that the LCT + SCTG techniquemay be considered an optimal technique in terms of reducing gingival recession depth, completeroot coverage and esthetic results for the treatment of single gingival recessions in the mandibularanterior! teeth.
URI
DOI
10.3390/JCM11102918
Versión del editor
Aparece en las colecciones













