Limitation of donor site and significant postoperative morbidity are often described in connective tissue graft harvesting. We want to show if mucoderm used in tunnel technique to recover miller class I and II recessions defects could be an alternative to connective tissue graft.
Connective tissue graft harvested from the palate does not always have sufficient size to cover multiple recession defects. Moreover, connective tissue graft shows significant postoperative morbidity to treat generalized multiple gingival recessions. The goal of this study is to show if Mucoderm could be considered has a substitute of connective tissue graft in the coverage of gingival recession defects.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
12
Transplant of palatine tissue and transplant of connective tissue Mucoderm
CHU de Nice
Nice, France, France
Percentage of Root coverage
Comparison of Percentage of Root coverage at baseline and 6 months postoperatively
Time frame: at 6 month
postoperation pain
visual analogic scale (at control and test side),
Time frame: at day 1 postoperation
postoperation pain
visual analogic scale (at control and test side),
Time frame: at day 2 postoperation
postoperation pain
visual analogic scale (at control and test side),
Time frame: at day 3 postoperation
postoperation pain
visual analogic scale (at control and test side),
Time frame: at day 5 postoperation
postoperation pain
visual analogic scale (at control and test side),
Time frame: at day 10 postoperation
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.