Efficacy of periodontal plastic procedures in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions

Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (Impact Factor: 4.01). 04/2014; 41 Suppl s15(s15):S63-S76. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12172
Source: PubMed


To systematically review the efficacy of periodontal plastic procedures (PPP) in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions (MGR).
Randomized clinical trials (RCT) on MGR treatment with at least 6 months duration were identified through electronic databases and hand-searched journals. Primary outcomes were complete root coverage (CRC) and percentage of root coverage (PRC). Weighted means and forest plots were calculated for all PPP. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of flap. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NM) on secondary outcomes was also performed.
Nine trials including 208 subjects and 858 recessions were identified. CRC after PPP was 24-89%. Mean weighted PRC was 86.27% (95% CI 80.71-91.83; p < 0.01). Heterogeneity of the literature prevented inter-techniques comparison. Coronally advanced flap (CAF) shows the higher variability in terms of CRC. Modified CAF and tunnel approaches show higher level of CRC. The NM suggests that CAF plus graft showed the higher probability of being the best treatment.
Limited evidence is available for MGR coverage. PPP are associated with high level of efficacy, in terms of PRC, and high variability of CRC. Indirect evidence indicates that CAF may benefit from newer variations of the technique and by the additional use of grafting.

Download full-text


Available from: Filippo Graziani, Jun 09, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The scope of the discussions of this consensus report was to assess the strength of the scientific evidence and make clinical and research recommendations for surgical interventions to cover exposed root surfaces and enhance soft tissues at implants. Discussions were informed by three systematic reviews covering single recessions, multiple recessions and soft-tissue deficiencies at implants. The strength of the evidence was assessed using a modification in GRADE. The group also emphasized the need to report the experience of the surgeon and the performance of the control intervention (CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatment). A moderate strength of evidence supported the following statements for single (moderately deep, mostly maxillary) recessions without inter-dental attachment loss: (i) The addition of a connective tissue graft (CTG) improved outcomes of coronally advanced flaps (CAF). (ii) The addition of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) improved the outcomes of CAF. For multiple recessions, preliminary data indicate that flaps specifically designed to treat this condition are worthy of additional attention. Emerging data indicate that it is possible to obtain complete root coverage at sites with some inter-dental attachment loss. With regards to soft-tissue deficiencies at implants, several procedures are available, but great heterogeneity among studies does not allow drawing conclusions at this time. The group highlighted that periodontal plastic procedures are complex, technique-sensitive interventions that require advanced skills and expertise. At single recessions, the addition of autologous CTG or EMD under CAF improves complete root coverage and may be considered the procedure of choice at maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. The adjunctive benefit needs to be put in the context of increased morbidity of the donor area or increased cost. Additional research is needed to: (i) assess the role of alternatives to autologous soft-tissue grafting in combination with CAF; (ii) identify the optimal surgical design and the need for additional soft-tissue grafting (or alternatives) at multiple recessions, recessions with inter-dental attachment loss and soft-tissue deficiencies at implants.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2014 · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology

  • No preview · Article · Dec 2014 · Journal of Periodontology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimAnalysing continuous outcomes for network meta-analysis by means of linear mixed models is a great challenge, as it requires statistical software packages to specify special patterns of model error variance and covariance structure. This article demonstrates a non-Bayesian approach to network meta-analysis for continuous outcomes in periodontal research with a special focus on the adjustment of data dependency.DataSeventeen studies on guided tissue regeneration were used to illustrate how the proposed linear mixed models for network meta-analysis of continuous outcomes.Methods & ResultsArm-based network meta-analysis use treatment arms from each study as the unit of analysis; when patients are randomly assigned to each arm, data are deemed independent and therefore no adjustment is required for multi-arm trials. Trial-based network meta-analysis use treatment contrasts as the unit of analysis, and therefore treatment contrasts within a multi-arm trial are not independent. This data dependency occurs also in split-mouth studies, and adjustments for data dependency are therefore required.Conclusions Arm-based analysis is the preferred approach to network meta-analysis, when all included studies use the parallel group design and some compare more than two treatment arms. When included studies used designs that yield dependent data, the trial-based analysis is the preferred approach.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2015 · Journal Of Clinical Periodontology
Show more