Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2016-03-07, 22:38:59 | version 1.38.0
Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 1/2016 59 synthetic monofilament 5-0 sutures (Monomyd, Butterfly Italia, Cavenago di Brianza, Italy; POLI NYL,Sweden&Martina,DueCarrare,Italy;Cyto plast, Osteogenics Biomedical, Lubbock, Texas, U.S.). In the postoperative period, ketoprofen (OKi, Dompé, Milan, Italy) according to the pati ent’s need was prescribed for pain control. Pati ents were instructed to abstain from consuming hot food and beverages for two days and from chewing hard food in the area of intervention until suture removal. Equally, no flossing or brush ing around the treated teeth was allowed anda0.12%chlorhexidinespray(CURASEPTADS Spray, Curaden, Saronno, Italy) was prescribed forlocalapplicationt.i.d.aftermeals.Aftersuture removal, proper oral hygiene measures were re-established, starting with brushing with an ultrasoftpostoperativetoothbrush.Furthermore, examinations were scheduled for 2, 4, 8 and 12 months,measuringagainallpreoperativeclinical parameters at the 12-month control (Figs. 1–5). REC reduction (RECred) and the CRC rate forthe test and control groups were calculated for all teeth involved in the treatment and for the cen tral incisors adjacent to the midline papilla. Dif ferences in terms of RECred and the CRC rate betweenthetest and controlgroupswere deter mined according to statistical analysis for all of the RECs by means of the Student’s t-test for independent samples and the chi-squared test, respectively, and limited to those at the central incisors bythe Mann–WhitneyU test and Fisher exact test, respectively. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Fifty-seven Miller Class I RECs were treated in the test group and 76 in the control group. One REC exhibiting less than 2 mm of residual kera tinizedtissueineachgroupreceivedaconnective tissue graft or a graft substitute and was not considered in the study. Therefore, 56 (mean C o r o n a l l y a d v a n c e d f l a p i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f b i l a t e r a l m u l t i p l e g i n g i v a l r e c e s s i o n s Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Test (tunnel; n = 56) Mean ± S.D. Control (no tunnel; n = 75) Mean ± S.D. Initial recession (mm) 2.3 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 1.1 Final recession (mm) 0.3 ± 0.5 0.4 ± 0.6 Recession reduction (mm) 2.1 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 0.9 Complete root coverage Incomplete root coverage Total Test (tunnel) 43 13 56 Control (no tunnel) 53 22 75 Total 96 35 131 Test (tunnel; n = 20) Mean ± S.D. Control (no tunnel; n = 20) Mean ± S.D. Initial recession (mm) 2.3 ± 0.9 2.7 ± 1.2 Final recession (mm) 0.3 ± 0.6 0.4 ± 0.6 Recession reduction (mm) 2.0 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 1.0 Complete root coverage Incomplete root coverage Total Test (tunnel) 15 5 20 Control (no tunnel) 14 6 20 Total 29 11 40 Table 1 Recession reduction: Comparison between the test and control groups. Table 3 Recession reduction of central incisors: Comparison between the test and control groups. Table 2 Complete root coverage: Comparison between the test and control groups. Table 4 Complete root coverage of central incisors: Comparison between the test and control groups. Volume 2 | Issue 1/201659 Initial recession (mm) 2.3 ± 0.92.3 ± 1.1 Final recession (mm) 0.3 ± 0.50.4 ± 0.6 Recession reduction (mm) 2.1 ± 0.91.9 ± 0.9 Test (tunnel) 431356 Control (no tunnel) 532275 Total 9635131 Initial recession (mm) 2.3 ± 0.92.7 ± 1.2 Final recession (mm) 0.3 ± 0.60.4 ± 0.6 Recession reduction (mm) 2.0 ± 0.92.3 ± 1.0 Test (tunnel) 15520 Control (no tunnel) 14620 Total 291140