Clinical Evaluation of Conventional Versus Microsurgical Techniques of Esthetic Crown Lengthening

Cairo University24 enrolled

Overview

the study compare gingival margin stability following conventional approach versus microsurgical approach of esthetic crown lengthening in management of patients with short clinical crowns in the upper anterior region.In management of patients with short clinical crowns in the upper anterior region, there is no difference in gingival margin stability between conventional and microsurgical approaches of esthetic crown lengthening.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

NONE

Enrollment

Conditions

Gummy Smile

Interventions

Test groupPROCEDURE

The surgery will be done with the use of 4x magnification loop, the knives are micro blades and micro-sutures 7//0 used with the microsurgical instruments kit

Control groupPROCEDURE

esthetic crown lengthening with conventional approach with an internal bevel incision, following CEJ anatomy, this will be followed by an intra-sulcular incision, removal of the strip of outlined marginal gingiva and elevation of a mucoperiosteal ﬂap to the level of the alveolar bone crest.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * Patients with healthy systemic condition. * Adult patients ˃ 18 years old. * The presence of the six upper anterior teeth. * Absence of sites with attachment loss and probing depth (PD) \>3 mm * Keratinized gingiva of at least 2mm width. * Compliance with good oral hygiene. * Patients accepts 6-months follow-up period (cooperative patients). * Patients provides an informed consent Exclusion Criteria: * Gummy smile with normal tooth proportions * Presence of prosthetic crowns * Extensive restorations * Extensive incisal edge attrition. * Misalignment on maxillary anterior teeth. * Smokers ˃ 10 cigarettes / day.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Mid-buccal gingival margin level

periodontal probe with William's graduation will be used to measure the distance from the CEJ to the gingival margin at the mid-buccal surface

Time frame: 6 months

Secondary Outcomes

Pink Esthetic Score (PES)

The PES is based on seven variables: mesial papilla, distal papilla, soft-tissue level, soft tissue contour, alveolar process deficiency, soft-tissue color and texture. Each variable shall be assessed with a 2-1-0 score, with 2 being the best and 0 being the poorest score. The mesial and distal papilla will be evaluated for completeness, incompleteness or absence

Time frame: 6 months

Post-Surgical swelling

will be evaluated post-surgically with Verbal Rating Scale with words ranging from (absent-slight-moderate-intense) Absent (no swelling), Slight (intraoral swelling at the operated area), Moderate (moderate intraoral swelling at the operated area) and Intense (intensive extra oral swelling extending beyond the operated area).

Time frame: 7days

Post-Surgical Patient Satisfaction: 3-item questionnaire

A 3-item questionnaire is asked and the patients shall use a 7-point answer scale

Time frame: 6 months

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.