Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Apr;78(4):615-23.
doi: 10.1902/jop.2007.060380.

Coronally positioned flap for treatment of restored root surfaces: a 6-month clinical evaluation

Juliana Antico Lucchesi  1 , Vanessa Renata Santos, Cristiane Mariote Amaral, Daiane Cristina Peruzzo, Poliana Mendes Duarte
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Coronally positioned flap for treatment of restored root surfaces: a 6-month clinical evaluation

Juliana Antico Lucchesi et al. J Periodontol. 2007 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinically the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) or microfilled resin composite (MRC) and coronally positioned flap (CPF) at 6 months following surgery.

Methods: Fifty-nine patients were assigned to one of three treatments: root exposure without NCCL treated with CPF (group 1); root exposure with NCCL treated with RMGI restoration plus CPF (group 2); or root exposure with NCCL treated with MRC restoration plus CPF (group 3). Clinical measurements that were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after surgery included plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP); probing depth (PD), recession reduction (RR), clinical attachment level gain (CALG), keratinized tissue height (KTH), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT), percentage of root coverage (RC), and percentage of restored root coverage (RRC).

Results: Intra- and intergroup analyses demonstrated no significant differences in PI, BOP, PD, RR, CALG, KTH, or KTT (P >0.05) among the groups at any time. At 6 months, the mean RC was 80.83% +/- 21.08% for group 1; the mean RRCs were 71.99% +/- 18.69% and 74.18% +/- 15.02% for groups 2 and 3, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in RRC between groups 2 and 3.

Conclusion: All treatments showed root coverage improvement without damage to periodontal tissues, supporting the use of CPF for treatment of root surfaces restored with RMGI or MRC as being effective over the 6-month period.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types