Are you B K Shirasu?

Claim your profile

Publications (1)1.99 Total impact

  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rocha AL, Shirasu BK, Hayacibara RM, Magro-Filho O, Zanoni JN, Araújo MG. Clinical and histological evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue after collagen sponge implantation in the human palate. J Periodont Res 2012; 47: 758-765. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S Background and Objective:  Successful root-coverage treatment depends on the thickness of the donor tissue. This study aimed to evaluate the thickness of donor tissue after augmentation of the connective tissue in the palatal area by implantation of lyophilized collagen sponge (Hemospon(®) ). Material and Methods:  Ten patients with an indication for root coverage, whose palate was deficient in adequate connective tissue, were recruited. The procedure was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the palatal thickness in the donor site was measured at three standardized points (points 1, 2 and 3), from the distal of the canine to the distal of the first molar, and the lyophilized collagen sponge was inserted. In the second stage, the palatal thickness over the implant was measured (at points 1, 2 and 3), two biopsies of the palatal mucosa were collected - one over the implant (experimental sample) and the other on the contralateral side (control sample) - and then root-coverage treatment was performed. Analyses consisted of clinical assessment of the palatal measurements before and after sponge implantation, and histological assessment of the experimental and control biopsy samples. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon test. Results:  Both analyses showed a significant increase in mean thickness, of 1.08 mm of neoformed tissue in the clinical analysis (the tissue at point 2 was the thickest of the three points) and of 0.53 mm in the histological analysis. Conclusion:  The insertion of lyophilized collagen sponge induced a significant increase in the thickness of palatal connective tissue.
    Journal of Periodontal Research 07/2012; 47(6):758-65. · 1.99 Impact Factor