Treatment of supraosseous defects (SD) may be challenging due to their limited regenerative potential. When located in aesthetic areas, treatment may result in a gingival recession increase with consequent patients' concerns in terms of aesthetic or tooth sensibility. In the present study, a minimally-invasive surgical procedure (namely, the Single Flap Approach, SFA) will be combined with the application of a viscoelastic gel containing polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid that was reported to positively modulate periodontal wound healing. The outcomes, evaluated 6 months after treatment, will be compared to those obtained with SFA alone. The evaluated outcomes will be either clinical (evaluation of clinical parameters such as gingival recession, residual probing depth, clinical attachment gain) or related to patient's perception (such as evaluation of the aesthetic or tooth sensibility).
SDs have been indicated as the most challenging lesions when dealing with periodontal regenerative procedures. In fact, their non-containing morphology does not contribute wound stability, and the wound maturation phase does not benefit from the cellular support coming from residual lateral bony walls, as in intraosseous defects. Also, the absence of residual bony walls does not allow a proper support of the surgical flaps, thus reducing the space needed for regeneration. Because of this unfavorable morphology, treatment of SDs generally results in worse clinical outcomes compared to intraosseous defects. Nevertheless, noteworthy clinical results have been reported when SDs associated to moderate or deep PD were treated with open flap debridement alone. In a systematic review Graziani et al. (2014), showed mean PD reductions of 1.41 mm in sites of moderate pre-surgical pocket depth (i.e., mean PD of 5.19 mm) that reached mean residual pockets of 3.83 mm over 6 months after treatment. More recently, a high prevalence of closed pockets (i.e., 79.3% of sites with residual PD ≤ 3mm) have been reported 12 months after treatment of deep (i.e., mean presurgical value of 6.3 ±0.6 mm) sites with access flap based on papilla preservation techniques (i.e., Modified/Simplified Papilla Preservation Technique). In 2021, the Single Flap Approach (SFA), a surgical technique originally introduced in the treatment of intraosseous defects, have been also proposed for SDs. The basic principle underlying the SFA is the elevation of a single flap (i.e., on the buccal or oral aspect only, depending on the main extension of the defect) to access the defect, leaving the interproximal supracrestal soft tissue intact. Data stemming from a retrospective analysis showed that the SFA with or without EMD was similarly effective in the treatment deep bleeding pockets associated to a horizontal pattern of bone destruction. In the study arm receiving SFA as a stand-alone protocol, significant mean CAL gains (2.1± 0.9 mm) and PD reductions (3.1± 1.0 mm) were observed 12 months after therapy. These results appear similar or even superior when compared to those reported by other studies where SDs were accessed with Double Flap Approach (based on Papilla Preservation Techniques) alone. Interestingly, this observation has been confirmed by a recent study where clinical and radiographic outcomes observed after surgical access of SDs performed by either a SFA or a DFA were compared. At 6 months, treatment with SFA resulted in greater prevalence of sites reaching CAL gain ≥ 1mm (80% vs 11%) and PD≤ 3mm (40% vs 10%) compared to DFA, thus suggesting that SFA principles may lead to improved clinical outcomes compared to DFA even in the treatment of SDs. Although the evidence from previous studies support the SFA as a promising treatment for SDs, some clinical aspects currently need further investigation. In the study by Simonelli et al. (2021), a tendency to suboptimal wound closure was evident, with 30% of defects undergoing SFA alone showing Early Healing Index (EHI) scores of 4 or 5 at 2 weeks after surgery. Based on data coming from a previous study demonstrating a trend towards better clinical outcomes (greater CAL gain, less buccal REC increase) in defects with optimal wound closure compared to incomplete wound closure, we may hypothesize that this aspect could have negatively influenced the observed clinical results. In fact, 1-year CAL gain (2.1 mm) was limited if compared to pre-surgery CAL (7.5 mm), and a mean gingival recession (REC) increase of 1 mm was observed. Recently, a viscoelastic gel containing polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid (PN-HA) was shown to positively influence the viability and proliferation of gingival fibroblasts, thus representing a plausible candidate as periodontal wound modulator. These in vitro results had been partially confirmed by a clinical study where the use of a PN-HA gel showed a higher tendency to pocket closure after subgingival re-instrumentation of PD≥ 5 mm. To date, no clinical data on the effectiveness of PN-HA gel after surgical treatment of SDs is available. Primary aim The primary aim of the study will be to evaluate the superiority of SFA + PN-HA gel over SFA for the change in interproximal gingival recession (iREC) observed 6 months after surgery of SDs in esthetic areas. Secondary aims The secondary aims of the study will be to comparatively evaluate SFA + PN-HA gel and SFA for the (i) 6-month prevalence of closed, non-bleeding pockets (i.e., PD≤ 4mm); (ii) quality of early wound closure; (iii) 6-month CAL gain; (iv) 6-month change in buccal gingival recession (bREC); (v) 6-month change in radiographic defect depth; (vi) duration of the surgical procedure; (vii) PROMs, including adverse events, postoperative pain intensity/duration, and patient satisfaction.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
70
Defects randomized to "test treatment" will receive a viscoelastic gel containing polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid (PN-HA gel) immediately at the completion of intra-surgical instrumentation. PN-HA gel will be also applied on the surgical wound at the completion of the suturing phase.
Defects randomized to "control group" will be accessed with the SFA and no PN-HA gel will be applied.
Interproximal gingival recession (iREC)
the primary outcome of the study will be iREC change
Time frame: 6 months after surgical treatment of supraosseous defects
Prevalence of closed, non bleeding pockets
closed pocket (i.e., residual 6-month probing depth (PD)≤ 4mm)
Time frame: 6 months after surgical treatment
Quality of early wound closure
The quality of early wound closure will be evaluated using the "early healing index" (EHI), as proposed by Wachtel et al. in 2003. EHI is based on the following scale: (EHI=1) complete flap closure, no fibrin line in the interproximal area; (EHI=2) complete flap closure, fine fibrin line in the interproximal area; (EHI=3) complete flap closure, fibrin clot in the interproximal area; (EHI=4) incomplete flap closure, partial necrosis of the interproximal tissue; and (EHI=5) incomplete flap closure, complete necrosis of the interproximal tissue.
Time frame: 2-week follow-up
Clinical Attachment Level (CAL) Gain
6-month CAL gain will be calculated by subtracting the 6-month CAL value from the baseline CAL
Time frame: 6 months after surgical treatment
Change in buccal gingival recession (bREC);
bREC change will be calculated by subtracting the 6-month bREC value from the baseline bREC value
Time frame: 6 months after surgical treatment
Change in radiographic defect depth
change in radiographic defect depth will be calculated by subtracting the 6-month radiographic defect depth value from the baseline radiographic defect depth value
Time frame: 6 months after surgical treatment
PROMs
PROMs will include adverse events, postoperative pain intensity/duration, and patient satisfaction. Both "postoperative course" and "patient satisfaction" will be assessed through a self-administered questionnaire and/or a VAS (1-100) ranging from "0 - no pain/no satisfaction" to "100 - intolerable pain/full satisfaction".
Time frame: post-operative days 1, 2, 7 and 14
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.