Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 879–887 | Cite as

Does enamel matrix derivative application improve clinical outcomes after semilunar flap surgery? A randomized clinical trial

  • Isabela Lima França-Grohmann
  • João Paulo Menck Sangiorgio
  • Manuela Rocha Bueno
  • Renato Corrêa Viana Casarin
  • Karina Gonzáles Silvério
  • Francisco Humberto Nociti Jr
  • Márcio Zaffalon Casati
  • Enilson Antonio Sallum
Original Article
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the treatment of gingival recessions by semilunar coronally positioned flap plus enamel matrix derivative (SCPF + EMD).

Materials and methods

Thirty patients with class I localized gingival recession were included. They were randomly allocated in two groups: SCPF + EMD and SCPF. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Patient/professional evaluation of esthetics and root sensitivity was performed.

Results

After 12 months, mean root coverage was 1.98 ± 0.33 mm for SCPF + EMD (90.86 ± 14.69%) and 1.85 ± 0.41 mm (79.76 ± 17.44%) for SCPF (p > 0.05). The esthetic evaluation by the patient showed preference for SCPF + EMD. According to the professional evaluation (QCE), the use of EMD decreases the appearance of postoperative scar tissue line. There was a significant reduction in root hypersensitivity with no further complaints by the patients.

Conclusions

The addition of EMD provides significantly better esthetics to SCPF, according to patient and professional assessments. SCPF + EMD is effective but not superior to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months.

Clinical relevance

Previous clinical trials showed that the combination of EMD with coronally advanced flaps may enhance the outcome of root coverage. There is a lack of studies testing the combination of EMD with SCPF. The combination SCPF + EMD provides better esthetics when compared to the SCPF and is effective, but not superior, to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months.

Trial registration: NCT02459704

Keywords

Dental enamel proteins Gingival recession/therapy Esthetics Tooth root/surgery, surgical flap 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support (masters scholarship) provided by the Research Funding Agency from São Paulo State (FAPESP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil (process #2013/13098-9).

Compliance with the ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bouchard P, Malet J, Borghetti A (2001) Decision-making in aesthetics: root coverage revisited. Periodontol 2000 27:97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roccuzzo M, Bunino M, Needleman I, Sanz M (2002) Periodontal plastic surgery for treatment of localized gingival recessions: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 29:178–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA (2008) Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent 36:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tarnow DP (1986) Semilunar coronally repositioned flap. J Clin Periodontol 13(3):182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tarnow DP (1994) Solving restorative esthetic dilemmas with the semilunar coronally positioned flap. J Esthet Dent 6(2):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thompson BK, Meyer R, Singh GB, Mitchell W (2000) Densitization of exposed of root surfaces using a semilunar coronally positioned flap. Gen Dent 48(1):68–71Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casati MZ, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum EA, Nogueira GR, Sallum AW (2001) Tratamento de recessões gengivaispela técnica de retalho semilunar posicionado coronariamente. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent 55(3):169–172Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haghighat K (2006) Modified semilunar coronally advanced flap. J Periodontol 77(7):1274–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Campos GV, Bittencourt S, Sallum AW, Nociti Júnior FH, Sallum EA, Casati MZ (2006) Achieving primary closure and enhancing aesthetics with periodontal microsurgery. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 18(7):449–454Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bittencourt S, Ribeiro E. del P, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2007) Root surface biomodification with EDTA for the treatment of gingival recession with a semilunar coronally repositioned flap. J Periodontol 78(9):1695–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bittencourt S, Del Peloso Ribeiro E, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2006) Comparative 6-month clinical study of a semilunar coronally positioned flap and subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession. J Periodontol 77(2):174–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bittencourt S, Ribeiro E, del P, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2009) Semilunar coronally positioned flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession: a 30-month follow-up study. J Periodontol 80(7):1076–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hammarström L (1997) Enamel matrix, cementum development and regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 24:658–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyngstadaas SP, Wohlfahrt JC, Brookes SJ, Paine ML, Snead ML, Reseland JE (2009) Enamel matrix proteins: old molecules for new applications. Orthod Craniofac Res 12(3):243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng GL, Fu E, Tu YK, Shen EC, Chiu HC, Huang RY, Yuh DY, Chiang CY (2015) Root coverage by coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft and/or enamel matrix derivative: a meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 50(2):220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cairo F, Nieri M, Pagliaro U (2014) Efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized facial gingival recessions. A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 41(15):44–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koop R, Merheb J, Quirynen M (2012) Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review. J Periodontol 83(6):707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miron RJ, Dard M, Weinreb M (2015) Enamel matrix derivative, inflammation and soft tissue wound healing. J Periodontal Res 50(5):555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schiff T, Dotson M, Cohen S, DeVizio W, Volpe A (1994) Efficacy of a dentifrice containing potassium nitrate, soluble pyrophosphate, PVM/MA copolymer, and sodium fluoride on dentinal hypersensitivity: a twelve week clinical study. J Clin Dent 5(Sp Is):87–92Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerner S, Sarfati A, Katsahian S, Jaumet V, Micheau C, Mora F, Monnet-Corti V, Bouchard P (2009) Qualitative cosmetic evaluation after root-coverage procedures. J Periodontol 80(1):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Santamaria MP, Queiroz LA, Mathias IF, Neves FL, Silveira CA, Bresciani E, Jardini MA, Sallum EA (2016) Resin composite plus connective tissue graft to treat single maxillary gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 43(5):461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Langer B, Langer L (1985) Subepithelial connective tissue graft technique for root coverage. J Periodontol 56:715–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Modica F, Del Pizzo M, Roccuzzo M, Romagnoli R (2000) Coronally advanced flap for the treatment of buccal gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative. A split-mouth study. J Periodontol 71(11):1693–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Del Pizzo M, Zucchelli G, Modica F, Villa R, Debernardi C (2005) Coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a 2-year study. J Clin Periodontol 32(11):1181–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Castellanos TA, de la Rosa RM, de la Garza M, Caffesse RG (2006) Enamel matrix derivative and coronal flaps to cover marginal tissue recessions. J Periodontol 77(1):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pilloni A, Paolantonio M, Camargo PM (2006) Root coverage with a coronally positioned flap used in combination with enamel matrix derivative: 18-month clinical evaluation. J Periodontol 77(12):2031–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tonetti MS, Jepsen S (2014) Working Group 2 of the European Workshop on Periodontology. Clinical efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures: consensus report of group 2 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 41(Suppl 15):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheng YF, Chen JW, Lin SJ, Lu HK (2007) Is coronally positioned flap procedure adjunct with enamel matrix derivative or root conditioning a relevant predictor for achieving root coverage? A systemic review. J Periodont Res 42:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Nieri M (2008) Treatment of gingival recession with coronally advanced flap procedures: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 35(8):136–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rebele SF, Zuhr O, Schneider D, Jung RE, Hürzeler M (2014) Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part II. Volumetric studies on healing dynamics and gingival dimensions. J Clin Periodontol 41(6):593–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sculean A, Alessandri R, Miron RJ, Salvi EG, Bosshardt DD (2011) Enamel matrix proteins and periodontal wound healing and regeneration. Clin Adv Periodontics 1:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gruber R, Stähli A, Miron RJ, Bosshardt DD, Sculean A (2015) Common target genes of palatal and gingival fibroblasts for EMD: the microarray approach. J Periodontal Res 50(1):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabela Lima França-Grohmann
    • 1
  • João Paulo Menck Sangiorgio
    • 1
  • Manuela Rocha Bueno
    • 1
  • Renato Corrêa Viana Casarin
    • 1
  • Karina Gonzáles Silvério
    • 1
  • Francisco Humberto Nociti Jr
    • 1
  • Márcio Zaffalon Casati
    • 1
  • Enilson Antonio Sallum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Division of Periodontics - Piracicaba Dental SchoolState University of CampinasPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations