View clinical trials related to Gingival Recession.
Filter by:Free gingival grafting surgeries require palatal grafts harvesting from the patient own palates . The donor sites pain , infection and retarded healing by secondary intension are the complication .
The purpose of this study was to develop a periodontal disease prediction software and a patient-based gingival recession simulator for clinical practice aiming at improving oral hygiene motivation of patients with periodontal problems.
The clinical trial studies patients with gingival recession defects (receding gums). The goal of the study is to test whether the additional use of enamel matrix derivatives (EMD), combined with the use of a coronally advance flap (CAF) and a CM (collagen matrix), shows a better outcome compared to a comparison group. The comparison group comprises patients receiving treatment with CAF and CM without the use of EMD.
The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical study is to compare the efficacy of subepithelial connective tissue graft harvested from the maxillary retromolar tubeosity area and L-PRF membranes in the treatment of RT1 recessions by coronally advanced flap. A total of 30 patients will be recruited and randomly assigned to the test group treated with CAF+tSCTG or the control group treated with (CAF+L-PRF). For each experimental site the parameters of gingival recession (GR), pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized gingiva width (KT) and gingival thickness (GT) will be analyzed at baseline (T0) and at 12 months after the surgical procedure (T1). In addition, was also evaluated the different morbidity of the two surgical techniques, using the VAS scale values recorded in the first 2 weeks following surgery. It was checked the Patient Related Esthetic Score and Dentine hypersensivite reduction.
The study aimed to compare, the effectiveness of Growth Factor Enhanced Matrix (GEM 21s) ® combined either with free connective tissue graft or collagen membrane in the treatment of Miller class II gingival recession.
In this comparative trial, 50 patients with shallow vestibules and Type 1/2 recessions will be treated with either a vertically coronally advanced flap + connective tissue graft or a free gingival graft. At baseline, 3rd-month, 6th-month, and 12th-month visits, the following parameters will be evaluated: buccal vestibular depth, keratinized tissue height, gingival thickness, recession depth, recession width, probing depth, and clinical attachment level. Keratinized tissue change, gingival thickness change, root coverage, clinical attachment gain, and complete root coverage will be calculated. The wound healing index, tissue appearance, patient expectations, aesthetics, and dentin hypersensitivity will be assessed at baseline and at the 6th week.
This study aims to compare the de-epithelized gingival graft (control group) and modified combined approach for connective tissue graft (test group) in patients undergoing palatal graft harvesting for mucogingival surgery in the oral cavity
The primary aim of this study is to evaluate whether the use of a xenogenic collagen matrix (XCM) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) with a multiple coronally advanced flap technique (mCAF) achieves better results than the use of an autologous connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of recession reduction (primary outcome) and other secondary root coverage outcomes (e.g. complete root coverage, mean root coverage). Moreover, this study aims to compare secondary clinical variables (e.g. keratinized tissue width (KTW) changes, probing pocket depth (PPD) changes, volumetric gain (VG), etc.), also with a digital approach, the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs e.g. pain, swelling, bleeding). The hypothesis of this study is that at 6 months and 1 year follow-up the mCAF with XCM is not inferior to CTG in terms of recessions reduction and secondary clinical variables, and superior regarding to PROMs.
Thin gingival phenotype is one of the major causative factors of gingival recession type 1 which can result in hypersensitivity, discomfort, and compromised esthetics. This study assess the efficacy of increasing the gingival thickness from thin gingival phenotype to thick gingival phenotype in the treatment of patients suffering from gingival recession (RT1) and maintenance of results using either connective tissue graft or de-epithelized free gingival graft after non-surgical periodontal debridement compared to non-surgical periodontal debridement alone.
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.