You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/66239
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRosetti, Elizabeth Pimentel-
dc.contributor.authorMarcantonio, Rosemary Adriana Chierici-
dc.contributor.authorRossa Júnior, Carlos-
dc.contributor.authorChaves, Eros S.-
dc.contributor.authorGoissis, Gilberto-
dc.contributor.authorMarcantonio Júnior, Elcio-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:19:56Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T18:16:33Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:19:56Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T18:16:33Z-
dc.date.issued2000-09-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Periodontology, v. 71, n. 9, p. 1441-1447, 2000.-
dc.identifier.issn0022-3492-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/66239-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/66239-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans. Methods: Twenty-four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre-molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result. Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P <0.0001). However, PD was statistically significantly better for GTR than SCTG treatment (GTR = 1.66 mm, SCTG = 1.00, P = 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P = 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P = 0.024). Conclusions: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques.en
dc.format.extent1441-1447-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.sourceScopus-
dc.subjectBarrier-
dc.subjectBioabsorbable-
dc.subjectComparison studies-
dc.subjectConnective tissue-
dc.subjectConnective tissue/surgery-
dc.subjectGingival recession/surgery-
dc.subjectGingival recession/therapy-
dc.subjectGrafts-
dc.subjectGuided tissue regeneration-
dc.subjectMembranes-
dc.subjectcollagen-
dc.subjectadult-
dc.subjectartificial membrane-
dc.subjectbiodegradable implant-
dc.subjectclinical trial-
dc.subjectcomparative study-
dc.subjectconnective tissue-
dc.subjectcontrolled clinical trial-
dc.subjectcontrolled study-
dc.subjectdental care-
dc.subjectfemale-
dc.subjectgingiva-
dc.subjectgingiva disease-
dc.subjecthuman-
dc.subjectmale-
dc.subjectmethodology-
dc.subjectmiddle aged-
dc.subjectoral surgery-
dc.subjectpatient satisfaction-
dc.subjectperiodontics-
dc.subjectplastic surgery-
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trial-
dc.subjecttransplantation-
dc.subjecttreatment outcome-
dc.subjectAbsorbable Implants-
dc.subjectAdult-
dc.subjectCollagen-
dc.subjectConnective Tissue-
dc.subjectEsthetics, Dental-
dc.subjectFemale-
dc.subjectGingiva-
dc.subjectGingival Recession-
dc.subjectGuided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectMale-
dc.subjectMembranes, Artificial-
dc.subjectMiddle Aged-
dc.subjectOral Surgical Procedures-
dc.subjectPatient Satisfaction-
dc.subjectSurgical Flaps-
dc.subjectTreatment Outcome-
dc.titleTreatment of gingival recession: Comparative study between subepithelial connective tissue graft and guided tissue regenerationen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionStt. Univ. of S. Paulo Araraquara-
dc.contributor.institutionHill Top Research, Inc.-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Periodontology Araraquara Dental School Stt. Univ. of S. Paulo Araraquara, São Paulo-
dc.description.affiliationHill Top Research, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL-
dc.description.affiliationDept. of Chem. and Molecular Physics University of São Paulo (USP), Sao Carlos, SP-
dc.description.affiliationDisciplina de Periodontia Faculdade de Odontol. de Araraquara UNESP, Rua Humaita, 1680, Centro Araraquara/SP, CEP 14801-903-
dc.description.affiliationUnespDisciplina de Periodontia Faculdade de Odontol. de Araraquara UNESP, Rua Humaita, 1680, Centro Araraquara/SP, CEP 14801-903-
dc.identifier.doi10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000167472300007-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Periodontology-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-0034277490-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.