Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The objective of this project is to compare post-operative pain associated with palatal and tuberosity donor sites for micro-CTG, and to evaluate the outcomes in both the donor and recipient sites.
A variety of surgical methods have been reported to reestablish root coverage, including tunneling techniques and coronally and laterally advanced flaps. As thin gingival tissue is one of the predisposing factors for GRD, the adjuvant use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (CTGs) is often considered. CTGs are thought to contribute to phenotype modification and stability of treatment outcomes and studies have indicated favorable esthetic results and high degrees of root coverage. CTGs are preferably harvested either from the lateral superficial part of the palate or from the tuberosity, due to the high amount of lamina propria and minimal submucosal tissue (adipose and glandular tissue).
When multiple adjacent teeth exhibit GRDs, the preferred surgical approach should offer the greatest possible root coverage, while limiting drawbacks (i.e., patient morbidity, esthetic problems). Thus, one of the challenges related to coverage of multiple GRDs is the scarcity of donor tissue. Modification of the harvested CTG into multiple "micro-CTG" has been proposed for the treatment of multiple adjacent GRDs (MAGRD) in order to reduce the amount of CTG to be harvested. Soft-tissue grafts from the tuberosity are increasingly gaining popularity not only because they are easier to harvest, are denser in connective tissue fibers but also because harvesting from the tuberosity presents minimal risk of intra- or post-operative complications, resulting in reduced patient morbidity. However CTG from maxillary tuberosity have been reported to induce a hyperplastic response in some patients.
The objective of this study will be to compare palatal versus tuberosity micro-CTG on postoperative pain, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), degree of root coverage and esthetic outcomes.
The investigators hypothesise that no statistically significant differences will be observed in terms of %root coverage and patient satisfaction at 12 months (non-inferiority). Subjects in the test group (micro-CTG) will report significantly lower morbidity at 1 and 2 weeks post-surgery when compared to controls (superiority).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palatal Micro Connective Tissue Graft | Active Comparator | A mucogingival surgery where a connective tissue graft harvested from the palate is divided in multiple micro connective tissue grafts and placed on a recipient site prepared for modified coronally advanced tunnel and sutured to cover multiple adjacent gingival recession defects. |
|
| Tuberosity Micro Connective Tissue Graft | Experimental | A mucogingival surgery where a connective tissue graft harvested from the maxillary tuberosity is divided in multiple micro connective tissue grafts and placed on a recipient site prepared for modified coronally advanced tunnel and sutured to cover multiple adjacent gingival recession defects. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| modified coronally advanced tunnel technique combined with multiple palatal micro connective tissue grafts | Procedure | The connective tissue graft will be harvested from the palate. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Mean mid-facial recession coverage (mRC) | Percentage of the exposed tooth root covered after surgical intervention | up to 1 year |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Complete Root Coverage (CRC) | Frequency of complete root coverage | up to 1 year |
| Changes of Keratinized Tissue Width (KTW) | Measured as the distance from the muco-gingival-junction to the gingival margin |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olivier Carcuac, DDS, PhD | Contact | 556275575 | 00971 | olivier.carcuac@gu.se |
| Jan Derks, DDS, PhD | Contact | 317863124 | 0046 | jan.derks@odontologi.gu.se |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Derks, DDS, PhD | Goteborg University | Study Chair |
Not provided
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18584934 | Result | Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent. 2008 Sep;36(9):659-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.007. Epub 2008 Jun 26. | |
| 29915931 | Result |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| modified coronally advanced tunnel technique combined with multiple tuberosity micro connective tissue grafts | Procedure | The connective tissue graft will be harvested from the maxillary tuberosity. |
|
| up to 1 year |
| Changes of Gingival Thickness (GT) | Measured 3 mm apically from the free gingival margin at the mid-buccal aspect of the tooth | up to 1 year |
| Patient Morbidity/Discomfort | Measured using an oral health-related quality of life questionnaire (OHRQoL) | up to 2 weeks |
| Patient Satisfaction | Measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), which consists of a 10cm line, with two end points representing 0 ('not satisfied') and 10 ('satisfied as much as it could possibly be') | up to 1 year |
| Sanz-Martin I, Rojo E, Maldonado E, Stroppa G, Nart J, Sanz M. Structural and histological differences between connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palatal mucosa or from the tuberosity area. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Feb;23(2):957-964. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2516-9. Epub 2018 Jun 18. |
| 24600654 | Result | Dellavia C, Ricci G, Pettinari L, Allievi C, Grizzi F, Gagliano N. Human palatal and tuberosity mucosa as donor sites for ridge augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;34(2):179-86. doi: 10.11607/prd.1929. |
| 19335093 | Result | Cairo F, Rotundo R, Miller PD, Pini Prato GP. Root coverage esthetic score: a system to evaluate the esthetic outcome of the treatment of gingival recession through evaluation of clinical cases. J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):705-10. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080565. |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005889 | Gingival Recession |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005882 | Gingival Diseases |
| D010510 | Periodontal Diseases |
| D009059 | Mouth Diseases |
| D009057 | Stomatognathic Diseases |
| D055093 | Periodontal Atrophy |
Not provided
Not provided