Gingival Recession
Conditions
Keywords
Partial de-epithelialized free gingival graft
Brief summary
In this study, the conventional SDG method applied to increase the adherent gingival band and partial de-epithelialized SDG methods were evaluated in terms of aesthetics and color compatibility of the recipient area with adjacent tissues. This study is a controlled double-blind clinical trial randomized by split-mouth, envelope method.Clinical parameters and aesthetic harmony were compared at postoperative 1st, 3rd and 6th months after surgical procedures.Color harmony evaluation was made in 2 different ways, both by photo analysis of a blind researcher using computer software and by visual evaluation of the same blind researcher.
Detailed description
The primary aim of this split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial is to compare the partial de-epithelialized free gingival grafting technique with the conventional free gingival grafting technique from an aesthetic point of view. The secondary aim of the study is to evaluate both techniques in terms of periodontal clinical parameters. This study is a controlled double-blind clinical trial randomized by split-mouth, envelope method. Fifteen patients with attached gingiva width ≤2 mm in the lower jaw bilateral canine and premolar regions were included in the study. De-epithelialized free gingival grafts were applied to the region determined by envelope randomization, and conventional free gingival grafts were applied to the other region. The areas of the patients with insufficient attached gingiva were photographed before the operation, post-op 1st, 3rd, and 6th months, and visual aesthetic evaluations were made with photo analyzes. Clinical parameters such as keratinized gingival width, probing pocket depth, and recession depths were recorded at baseline and at 6 months. Results were represented as mean ± standard deviation and median, and a p value of \<0,05 was considered statistically significant.
Interventions
PROCEDUREComparison of conventional free gingival graft versus partial free gingival graft
Conventional free gingival graft was applied to the area of the patient with attached gingival insufficiency determined by randomization. Clinical and aesthetic comparisons were made in the postoperative 1st, 3rd and 6th months.
Sponsors
Yonca Naziker
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Absence of known systemic disease * Not using any medication that may affect the periodontal tissues or prolong the bleeding time * Having not previously operated on the palate area, which is both the receiving area and the donor area. * The depth of the probing sulcus of all teeth is \<3 mm * Whole mouth plaque index and gingival index scores \<1 * The teeth in the operation area are vital * Absence of caries and / or restoration on the root surfaces of the teeth in the operation area * Lack of attached gingiva in opposite jaws
Exclusion criteria
* Pregnant or lactating women, * Smoking individuals, * Individuals under the age of 18
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| aesthetic evaluation of both surgical methods | change in post-op 6 months | Aesthetic evaluation of both surgical methods was done by a blinded researcher by photo analysis. For photo analysis, photographs of the recipient area were taken at the beginning and 6 months after the operation with the help of Adobe Photoshop program and evaluated on these photographs. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| clinical parameters | change in post-op 6 months | In the clinical evaluation of both surgical methods, keratinized tissue width parameters were calculated and compared at baseline and pot-op 6 months. |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed