IADR Abstract Archives
Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Connective Tissue Grafts to Platelet Rich Fibrin in Gingival Recession Treatment: An Extended Case Series
Objectives: This study set out to evaluate the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of connective tissue grafts (CTG) to platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in treating gingival recession. I hypothesised that PRF could be as effective as CTGs in treating recession with improved aesthetic results. To the best of my knowledge this clinical study is unique in the South African setting in that an objective aesthetic scoring system was used to report on aesthetic changes. The outcomes of this study was also patient based to determine patient satisfaction with aesthetic outcomes.
Methods: This six month study was an extended case series with a randomised split-mouth design. Five patients with a total of twenty sites underwent treatment. Each site was paired with a similar lesion on the opposite or contralateral side and randomly assigned to the CTG (control) or PRF (test) treatment. Six variables were recorded over the study period. These variables were probing depth, recession depth, recession width, clinical attachment level, keratinised tissue width and gingival thickness. These were measured at the following intervals: 0, 8, 12, 16 and 24 weeks. Photographs were taken at baseline and at 24 weeks to evaluate aesthetics using the Pink Esthetic Score. At the end of the study period, patients were given a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with treatment outcomes.
Results: Both treatments improved the clinical outcomes but CTGs demonstrated improvements at a greater number of sites than PRF (60% to 30% respectively). The aesthetic scores improved at four sites for both CTGs and PRF with only one site in each group scoring lower at the end of the study. The aesthetic scores at the remaining sites did not change over the study period. Therefore, both CTGs and PRF demonstrated the potential to improve or maintain aesthetic results. Analyses of the patient questionnaire showed that patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes of both treatments.
Conclusions: The results from this study indicate that both CTGs and PRF membranes can be effective in treating gingival recession and both treatments can improve clinical and aesthetic outcomes.
Methods: This six month study was an extended case series with a randomised split-mouth design. Five patients with a total of twenty sites underwent treatment. Each site was paired with a similar lesion on the opposite or contralateral side and randomly assigned to the CTG (control) or PRF (test) treatment. Six variables were recorded over the study period. These variables were probing depth, recession depth, recession width, clinical attachment level, keratinised tissue width and gingival thickness. These were measured at the following intervals: 0, 8, 12, 16 and 24 weeks. Photographs were taken at baseline and at 24 weeks to evaluate aesthetics using the Pink Esthetic Score. At the end of the study period, patients were given a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with treatment outcomes.
Results: Both treatments improved the clinical outcomes but CTGs demonstrated improvements at a greater number of sites than PRF (60% to 30% respectively). The aesthetic scores improved at four sites for both CTGs and PRF with only one site in each group scoring lower at the end of the study. The aesthetic scores at the remaining sites did not change over the study period. Therefore, both CTGs and PRF demonstrated the potential to improve or maintain aesthetic results. Analyses of the patient questionnaire showed that patients were satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes of both treatments.
Conclusions: The results from this study indicate that both CTGs and PRF membranes can be effective in treating gingival recession and both treatments can improve clinical and aesthetic outcomes.