Composite Resin Plus Connective Tissue Graft.

Overview

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the clinical, aesthetic and patient-centered parameters of connective tissue graft associated or not with composite resin for the treatment of gingival recession.

This was a prospective, parallel and controlled clinical trial. Group CTG (n = 18) - patients who received connective tissue graft to treat gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion. Group CTG+RC (n = 18) - patients who received connective tissue graft plus resin composite restoration to treat gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion. The surgeries, as well as all postoperative follow-up, were performed at the dental clinic of ICT- UNESP. Two horizontal incisions were made at right angles to the adjacent interdental papillae, without interfering with the gingival margins of neighboring teeth. Two oblique vertical incisions were extended beyond the mucogingival junction, and a trapezoidal mucoperiosteal flap was raised up to the mucogingival junction. After this point, a split-thickness flap was extended apically, releasing the tension and favoring coronal positioning of the flap.The exposed root surface was gently scaled and planed until it became smooth in the CTG group. For those allocated to CTG+RC group, a sterile rubber dam was placed to isolate the operative field and the non-carious cervical lesion restoration was performed with a nanocomposite resin (Filtek Supreme - 3M ESPE - St. Paul, MN, USA), following the manufacturer's instructions. Afterward, the both groups received a thin and small connective tissue graft that was sutured over the root/restoration surface. Then, the flap was coronally positioned and sutured to completely cover the graft. Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-operatively. Statistical Analysis The null hypothesis considered in the study was the absence of difference in the clinical parameters between the different groups. For data analysis, the statistical program was used (Sigmaplot). The demographic and clinical data were compared between the groups using Student's t-test. The data were first analyzed for homogeneity using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which indicated non-normal distribution. . Those presenting Shapiro-Wilk p values \< 0.05 were analyzed using a Friedman test (for intragroup comparisons) and Mann-Whitney tests (for intergroup comparisons). Patients' esthetics and discomfort measures using VAS were analyzed by T-tests. The frequency of sites that were scored as very good or excellent in each group by QCE analysis, the frequency of complete root coverage, BOP, and the presence or absence of plaque at the site were compared using χ2 tests. Intergroup RES comparisons were performed with a T-test. A significance level of 0.05 was adopted.

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Outcomes