Comparison of the root coverage and esthetic outcomes of 3 different techniques for gingival recession

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2022.11.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To evaluate the outcomes of connective tissue graft (CTG) combined with 3 different techniques for gingiva recession (GR) including envelope technique, tunnel technique (TUN) and vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA), and analyze the differences of root coverage and esthetic outcomes of the 3 techniques. Methods ·A total of 87 patients who visited the Department of Periodontology, Shanghai Ninth People′s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from January 2020 to December 2021 with a total of 324 GRs were enrolled in this study. All GRs were treated with one of the 3 techniques. The patients′ periodontal conditions were examined at baseline and 6 months after surgery. The root coverage esthetic score (RES) and mucosal scarring index (MSI) were evaluated by 2 periodontists 6 months after surgery. The differences of keratinized gingiva (KG) and GR at baseline and 6 months after surgery were compared by using t-test. Analysis of variance was used to compare the differences of percentage of root coverage (PRC), RES and MSI of different techniques, the same technique in different regions, and different techniques in each region. Results ·In this study, KG increased by (1.49±1.36) mm, and there was a significant difference between each technique (P=0.002). GR decreased by (2.37±1.37) mm, and there was a significant difference between each technique (P=0.000). The mean PRC was (87.7±27.1)%, which was significantly different between each technique (P=0.003). The percentage of complete root coverage (PCRC) was 74.0%, and there was significant difference among the 3 techniques (P=0.000). There were significant differences in RES in different regions between envelope+CTG and VISTA+CTG (P_envelope=0.003, P_VISTA=0.000). There was a significant difference in MSI of different regions in VISTA+CTG (P=0.000). Among the 3 techniques, only PRC had differences in the lower anterior teeth (P=0.011); there was a significant difference in RES between lower anterior teeth and lower posterior teeth (P_LA=0.001,P_LP=0.034), the RES of lower anterior teeth treated with TUN+CTG was higher, and the RES of lower posterior teeth treated with TUN+CTG and VISTA+CTG was higher; there were significant differences in MSI in each region (P_UA=0.011, P_UP=0.000, P_LA=0.003, P_LA=0.001). Conclusion ·All the 3 techniques are capable of reducing GR and widening KG. The root coverage and esthetic outcomes of TUN+CTG are superior to the other 2 techniques if the operator′s experience is not considered.

Key words: gingival recession, root coverage, envelope technique, tunnel technique (TUN), vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA)

CLC Number:

R781.4⁺4

SUN Wentao, SUN Mengjun, XIE Yufeng, SHU Rong. Comparison of the root coverage and esthetic outcomes of 3 different techniques for gingival recession[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2022, 42(11): 1550-1556.

Figures/Tables 4

TrendMD

References 18

1	AGUSTÍN Z J. Glossary of periodontal terms[J]. Rev ADM, 1990, 47(6): 350-358.
2	BERNIMOULIN J P, LÜSCHER B, MÜHLEMANN H R. Coronally repositioned periodontal flap. Clinical evaluation after one year[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 1975, 2(1): 1-13.
3	ZUCCHELLI G, D E SANCTIS M. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands[J]. J Periodontol, 2000, 71(9): 1506-1514.
4	CAIRO F, CORTELLINI P, PILLONI A, et al. Clinical efficacy of coronally advanced flap with or without connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions in the aesthetic area: a randomized controlled clinical trial[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2016, 43(10): 849-856.
5	CHEN L, ARBIEVA ZH, GUO S J, et al. Positional differences in the wound transcriptome of skin and oral mucosa[J]. BMC Genomics, 2010, 11: 471.
6	ALLEN AL. Use of the supraperiosteal envelope in soft tissue grafting for root coverage. I. Rationale and technique[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 1994, 14(3): 216-227.
7	ZADEH H H. Minimally invasive treatment of maxillary anterior gingival recession defects by vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access and platelet-derived growth factor BB[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2011, 31(6): 653-660.
8	MILLER P D Jr. A classification of marginal tissue recession[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 1985, 5(2): 8-13.
9	CAIRO F, ROTUNDO R, MILLER P D, et al. Root coverage esthetic score: a system to evaluate the esthetic outcome of the treatment of gingival recession through evaluation of clinical cases[J]. J Periodontol, 2009, 80(4): 705-710.
10	WESSELS R, DE ROOSE S, DE BRUYCKERE T, et al. The Mucosal Scarring Index: reliability of a new composite index for assessing scarring following oral surgery[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2019, 23(3): 1209-1215.
11	MAZZOCCO F, COMUZZI L, STEFANI R, et al. Coronally advanced flap combined with a subepithelial connective tissue graft using full- or partial-thickness flap reflection[J]. J Periodontol, 2011, 82(11): 1524-1529.
12	NAHAS R, GONDIM V, CARVALHO C V, et al. Treatment of multiple recessions with collagen matrix versus connective tissue: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Braz Oral Res, 2020, 33: e123.
13	ZUHR O, REBELE S F, VACH K, et al. Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivate for root coverage: 2-year results of an RCT using 3D digital measuring for volumetric comparison of gingival dimensions[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2020, 47(9): 1144-1158.
14	SALEM S, SALHI L, SEIDEL L, et al. Tunnel/pouch versus coronally advanced flap combined with a connective tissue graft for the treatment of maxillary gingival recessions: four-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(8): 2641.
15	ALLEN E P. The papilla access tunnel technique for the treatment of shallow recession and thin tissue in the mandibular anterior region[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2020, 40(2): 165-169.
16	AZARIPOUR A, KISSINGER M, FARINA V S L, et al. Root coverage with connective tissue graft associated with coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique: a randomized, double-blind, mono-centre clinical trial[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2016, 43(12): 1142-1150.
17	CHAUBEY KK, ARORA VK, THAKUR R, et al. Perio-esthetic surgery: using LPF with frenectomy for prevention of scar[J]. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2011, 15(3): 265-269.
18	CAIRO F. Periodontal plastic surgery of gingival recessions at single and multiple teeth[J]. Periodontol 2000, 2017, 75(1): 296-316.

Indicator	Envelope+CTG	TUN+CTG	VISTA+CTG	Total
Patient/n	32	24	31	87
Tooth/n	105	112	107	324
Gender （male/female）/n	14/18	11/13	12/19	37/50
Age/year	34.3±5.9	34.3±7.0	32.0±7.0	33.5±6.7

Indicator	Envelope+CTG	TUN+CTG	VISTA+CTG	Total
Patient/n	32	24	31	87
Tooth/n	105	112	107	324
Gender （male/female）/n	14/18	11/13	12/19	37/50
Age/year	34.3±5.9	34.3±7.0	32.0±7.0	33.5±6.7

Indicators	Envelope+CTG	TUN+CTG	VISTA+CTG	F	P value
KG/mm
Baseline	2.16±1.09	2.39±1.56	2.27±1.62	0.45	0.637
6 months post-surgery	3.04±0.97	4.23±1.12	3.70±1.39	13.94	0.000
Difference	1.19±1.28	1.84±1.44	1.42±1.25	6.57	0.002
GR/mm
Baseline	2.21±1.15	3.19±1.61	2.97±1.98	11.56	0.000
6 months post-surgery	0.44±0.85	0.23±0.63	0.65±1.18	18.37	0.000
Difference	‒（1.77±2.21）	‒（2.99±1.46）	‒（2.31±1.18）	24.69	0.000
PRC/%	81.40±39.90	93.20±15.80	87.60±19.90	5.80	0.003
PCRC/%	69.50	81.30	70.10	10.87	0.000
RES/score	8.22±2.18	8.87±1.54	8.25±2.02	7.70	0.001
MSI/score	3.25±2.75	1.58±2.03	1.84±2.47	29.31	0.000

Indicators	Envelope+CTG	TUN+CTG	VISTA+CTG	F	P value
KG/mm
Baseline	2.16±1.09	2.39±1.56	2.27±1.62	0.45	0.637
6 months post-surgery	3.04±0.97	4.23±1.12	3.70±1.39	13.94	0.000
Difference	1.19±1.28	1.84±1.44	1.42±1.25	6.57	0.002
GR/mm
Baseline	2.21±1.15	3.19±1.61	2.97±1.98	11.56	0.000
6 months post-surgery	0.44±0.85	0.23±0.63	0.65±1.18	18.37	0.000
Difference	‒（1.77±2.21）	‒（2.99±1.46）	‒（2.31±1.18）	24.69	0.000
PRC/%	81.40±39.90	93.20±15.80	87.60±19.90	5.80	0.003
PCRC/%	69.50	81.30	70.10	10.87	0.000
RES/score	8.22±2.18	8.87±1.54	8.25±2.02	7.70	0.001
MSI/score	3.25±2.75	1.58±2.03	1.84±2.47	29.31	0.000

Indicators	Envelope+CTG	TUN+CTG	VISTA+CTG	F	P value
PRC/%
UA	76.9±79.9	96.3±8.2	96.4±8.7	1.36	0.265
UP	80.6±34.5	88.6±18.8	90.0±20.0	0.69	0.505
LA	76.9±33.2	93.5±14.8	85.4±20.3	4.67	0.011
LP	89.8±18.2	98.1±6.7	89.1±23.1	1.11	0.336
F	0.680	2.050	1.300	‒	‒
P value	0.567	0.111	0.280	‒	‒
RES/score
UA	9.31±2.00	8.96±1.32	9.29±1.03	0.83	0.439
UP	8.10±2.24	8.64±1.63	9.00±1.55	1.88	0.157
LA	7.65±2.42	8.79±1.76	7.78±2.16	6.68	0.001
LP	8.60±1.64	9.31±1.07	9.36±1.14	3.49	0.034
F	4.780	1.240	9.180	‒	‒
P value	0.003	0.296	0.000	‒	‒
MSI/score
UA	2.65±2.54	1.66±1.85	1.07±1.16	4.71	0.011
UP	3.93±2.56	1.11±1.05	1.00±2.00	30.37	0.000
LA	3.29±2.82	1.81±2.51	2.33±2.72	6.00	0.003
LP	3.00±2.77	1.73±2.43	0.45±0.78	9.50	0.000
F	1.450	1.390	6.260	‒	‒
P value	0.230	0.248	0.000	‒	‒