A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage
Statement of the Problem: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold standard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential benefits of Mucoderm®, a collage...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Dentistry |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/article_48639_0a1a3513a9375ee4b37c85a6e4b59ce1.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811190499815456768 |
|---|---|
| author | Alireza Fathiazar Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi Ferena Sayar |
| author_facet | Alireza Fathiazar Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi Ferena Sayar |
| author_sort | Alireza Fathiazar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Statement of the Problem: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold standard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential benefits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treatment for root coverage can be investigated.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG.
Materials and Method: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + connective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodontal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data.
Results: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups (p Value<0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW (p Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months).
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T14:52:13Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dd498a6415834c01ac67d5f72abd1caf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2345-6485 2345-6418 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T14:52:13Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Shiraz University of Medical Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Dentistry |
| spelling | doaj.art-dd498a6415834c01ac67d5f72abd1caf2022-12-22T04:17:25ZengShiraz University of Medical SciencesJournal of Dentistry2345-64852345-64182022-09-01Supplement-September-2022Supplement-September-202240240910.30476/DENTJODS.2021.90830.1535A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root CoverageAlireza Fathiazar 0Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi 1Ferena Sayar 2Dept. of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran. Dept. of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.Dept. of Periodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.Statement of the Problem: Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) is the gold standard treatment for root coverage procedure; however, this technique has limitations such as the need for a donor site and the difficulty of the harvesting procedure. The potential benefits of Mucoderm®, a collagen matrix derived from porcine dermis, as an alternative treatment for root coverage can be investigated. Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mucoderm® for root coverage and compare its results with SCTG. Materials and Method: This double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was conducted on seven patients with 12 bilateral gingival recessions (24 recession sites). Coronally advanced flap + Mucoderm® was applied on one side and coronally advanced flap + connective tissue graft (CTG) was applied on the contralateral side. We measured the periodontal pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW) and gingival thickness (GT) with a surgical stent at baseline (preoperatively) and at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The Wilcoxon and Friedman tests were used to analyse the data. Results: The mean percentage of root coverage was 26% in the Mucoderm® group and 60% in the SCTG group at 6 months, compared with baseline. The mean percentage of root coverage was significantly different between the two groups (p Value<0.05). The results indicated that Mucoderm® did not increase the KTW, while CTG significantly increased the KTW (p Value< 0.05 at 1, 3 and 6 months). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that Mucoderm® might not be an appropriate alternative for the CTG in root coverage procedures. https://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/article_48639_0a1a3513a9375ee4b37c85a6e4b59ce1.pdfgingival recession; connective tissue; collagen matrix |
| spellingShingle | Alireza Fathiazar Roya Shariatmadar Ahmadi Ferena Sayar A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage Journal of Dentistry gingival recession; connective tissue; collagen matrix |
| title | A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage |
| title_full | A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage |
| title_fullStr | A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage |
| title_short | A Comparison between Mucoderm® and Connective Tissue Graft for Root Coverage |
| title_sort | comparison between mucoderm r and connective tissue graft for root coverage |
| topic | gingival recession; connective tissue; collagen matrix |
| url | https://dentjods.sums.ac.ir/article_48639_0a1a3513a9375ee4b37c85a6e4b59ce1.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alirezafathiazar acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage AT royashariatmadarahmadi acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage AT ferenasayar acomparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage AT alirezafathiazar comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage AT royashariatmadarahmadi comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage AT ferenasayar comparisonbetweenmucodermandconnectivetissuegraftforrootcoverage |