Xenogeneic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flap compared to connective tissue with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of dehiscence-type recession defects.
BACKGROUND
For root coverage therapy, the connective tissue graft (CTG) plus coronally advanced flap (CAF) is considered the gold standard therapy against which alternative therapies are generally compared. When evaluating these therapies, in addition to traditional measures of root coverage, subject-reported, qualitative measures of esthetics, pain, and overall preferences for alternative procedures should also be considered. This study determines if a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) with CAF might be as effective as CTG+CAF in the treatment of recession defects.


METHODS
This study was a single-masked, randomized, controlled, split-mouth study of dehiscence-type recession defects in contralateral sites; one defect received CTG+CAF and the other defect received CM+CAF. A total of 25 subjects (8 male, 17 female; mean age: 43.7 +/- 12.2 years) were evaluated at 6 months and 1 year. The primary efficacy endpoint was recession depth at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included traditional periodontal measures, such as width of keratinized tissue and percentage of root coverage. Subject-reported values of pain, discomfort, and esthetic satisfaction were also recorded.


RESULTS
At 6 months, recession depth was on average 0.52 mm for test sites and 0.10 mm for control sites. Recession depth change from baseline was statistically significant between test and control, with an average of 2.62 mm gained at test sites and 3.10 mm gained at control sites for a difference of 0.4 mm (P = 0.0062). At 1 year, test percentage of root coverage averaged 88.5%, and controls averaged 99.3% (P = 0.0313). Keratinized tissue width gains were equivalent for both therapies and averaged 1.34 mm for test sites and 1.26 mm for control sites (P = 0.9061). There were no statistically significant differences between subject-reported values for esthetic satisfaction, and subjects' assessments of pain and discomfort were also equivalent.


CONCLUSIONS
When balanced with subject-reported esthetic values and compared to historical root coverage outcomes reported by other investigators, CM+CAF presents a viable alternative to CTG+CAF, without the morbidity of soft tissue graft harvest.
McGuire
Michael K
MK
mkmperio@swbell.net
Scheyer
E Todd
ET
D000328:Adult; D002614:Chelating Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003094:Collagen / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D024042:Collagen Type I / Q000627:therapeutic use; D024061:Collagen Type III / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003116:Color; D003238:Connective Tissue / Q000637:transplantation; D004492:Edetic Acid / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005881:Gingiva / Q000473:pathology / Q000637:transplantation*; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000209:etiology; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D017622:Periodontal Attachment Loss / Q000601:surgery; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000601:surgery; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013524:Surgical Flaps; D019237:Tooth Cervix / Q000473:pathology; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000187:drug effects / Q000473:pathology; D014183:Transplantation, Heterologous; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D002614:Chelating Agents; D024042:Collagen Type I; D024061:Collagen Type III; D003094:Collagen; D004492:Edetic Acid