View clinical trials related to Gingival Recession.
Filter by:The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate the dimensional changes in the short and long-term in patients with thin gum tissues who have gum grafts placed on either denuded bone or gum grafts placed on a bone with some tissues remaining. The main question this study aims to answer is: - Does the placement of free-epithelized gingival grafts (gum grafts) on full thickness bed preparation (having all of the tissue removed from the bone) lead to similar clinical, digital, and patient-related outcomes and measurements over a period of 12 months versus split thickness bed preparation (where a small layer of tissue is left over the bone) in patients with thin gum tissue phenotypes (gum tissue is generally less than 1.5 millimeters) who are in need of soft tissue augmentation procedures? Participants will be asked to attend 8 visits, which include: (i) screening visit, (ii) prophylaxis visit, (iii) random assignment to Group A or Group B along with surgery and digital data collection, (iv) 2-week post-operative visit, (v) 6-week post-operative visit, (vi) 3-month follow-up visit, (vii) 6-month follow-up visit, (viii) 12-month follow-up visit. Also, Group A will have a free epithelialized gingival/mucosal graft (gum graft) placed on full thickness periosteal bed preparation where all of the tissue was removed (test group). Group B will have a free epithelialized gingival/mucosal graft (gum graft) on split thickness periosteal bed preparation where only a portion of the tissue was removed (control group). Researchers will compare Group A and Group B to see if there is a difference in clinical, digital, and patient-related outcomes and measurements over a period of 12 months.
The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate whether suturing protocols (suture removal timing) influence root coverage outcomes in recession defects treated with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure.
This study aims to assess the effect of micro-needling together with coronally advanced flap procedure on the gain of gingival thickness (GT) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) and compare it to Alloderm with coronally advanced flap procedure in the management of thin periodontal phenotype associated with recession type 1 (RT1)
The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of feather edge finish line and deep chamfer finish line on gingival position, bleeding on probing and marginal adaptation.
Treatment of gingival recession requires favourable anatomical conditions and the use of invasive surgical approaches. Hence, these procedures are not always indicated in all cases and can cause great pain and morbidity. Coloured composite restorations that mimic the lost gingival tissues can provide a non-invasive and simple solution regardless of the recession soft and hard-tissue conditions.
Complete coverage of the recession complemented with pleasing esthetics and minimal probing measures are the main goals of root coverage procedures. According to a consensus report from the AAP regeneration workshop on the periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures; most studies have been directed on RT-1 (Miller Class I and II) defects and that further research on results in RT-2, RT-3 ( Miller Class III and IV) defects is needed. Consequently, it was planned to conduct this research on RT-2 (Miller Class III) recessions to overcome this gap of knowledge, de-epithelialized free gingival graft is proposed aiming to enhance the papillary height, esthetic, with less pain and postoperative trauma. Equally, it is considered a more conservative approach with fewer complications.
Following tooth loss, a considerable reduction in hard- and soft-tissue volume can be expected (Tan WL, et al., 2012), (AraujoMG, et al., 2015). In the anterior maxilla, tissue loss can make future implant restorations more challenging and less predictable in terms of achieving and maintaining favorable soft-tissue-emergence profiles. Even with careful implant planning and placement, marginal gingival recession of 0.5-1 mm has been a common finding with single-tooth implants (Nisapakultorn K, et al., 2010), (Suphanantachat S, et al., 2012). This is partly attributed to bone remodeling after implant surgery, and occurs regardless of implant-placement protocol used (Hof M, et al., 2015).
Management of Miller class I & II gingival recession using coronally advanced flap combined with conventional de-epithelialized free gingival graft versus coronally advanced flap combined with abrasive de-epithelized connective tissue graft Null hypothesis: In patients with Miller class I and II gingival recession, there is no difference between coronally advanced flap with conventional de-epithelialized free gingival graft and coronally advanced flap with abrasive de-epithelized connective tissue graft in recession depth reduction.
Postoperative pain as well as bleeding are the most common complications after palatal graft harvesting also postsurgical swelling have been reported , Although different agents were used to protect the denuded areas on the palate as gelatin sponge , platelet rich fibrin (PRF) , medicinal plant extract (MPE) and platelet concentrate , no gold standard can be specified for this purpose PICO Format: P: Patients with mucogingival defects that require free gingival graft. I:1. Hyaluronic acid gel 0.2% placed in the palatal donor site then covered with periodontal pack (test group I) 2.MEBO ointment placed in the palatal donor site then covered with periodontal pack (test group II) C: Periodontal pack only O: Post-operative pain T: day 3, 7, 14, 21 and 42 postoperative. Aim of the study: To compare the effect of MEBO ointment versus Hyaluronic acid gel 0.2% applied to palatal donor site in post-operative pain reduction after free gingival graft harvesting. Research question: Is MEBO ointment as effective as hyaluronic acid gel in the management of postoperative pain after free gingival graft harvesting in the management of mucogingival defects?
patients with Miller class I , II gingival recession will be divided into 2 groups (control, intervention).the control one will receive coronally advanced flap with subepithililal connective tissue graft harvested from the palate while the intervention one will have coronally advanced flap with advanced platelet rich fibrin(A-PRF).as it represent a new generation of platelet concentrate allow for better healing and root coverage results. Null hypothesis: In patients with Miller class I and II gingival recession, there is no difference in amount of root coverage (mm) following the application of SCTG+A-PRF compared to CAF+SCTG.