Search

Aim To assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), aesthetics and stability of root coverage procedures from a previous 6-month RCT after 1 year. Material & Methods 45 patients (90 recessions) had received a coronally advanced flap (CAF = control) only or a xenogeneic collagen matrix in addition (CAF + CMX = test). Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used for PROMs and the root coverage aesthetic score (RES) for professional aesthetic evaluations. Results VAS scores (patient satisfaction) amounted to 8.58 ± 1.86 (test) versus 8.38 ± 2.46 (control). 6 patients preferred CAF+CMX concerning surgical procedure and aesthetics, 6 preferred CAF and 29 were equally satisfied. RES was 7.85 ± 2.42 for the test group versus 7.34 ± 2.90 for the controls. Root coverage (RC) was 76.28% for test and 75.05% for control defects. The mean increase in keratinized tissue width was higher in test (from 1.97 to 3.02 mm) than in controls (2.00 to 2.64 mm) (p = 0.0413). Likewise, test sites showed more gain in gingival thickness (0.52 mm) than control sites (0.27 mm) (p = 0.0023). Compared to 6 months, clinical outcomes were stable Conclusions Results for PROMs, RES and RC did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Thickness and width of keratinized tissue were enhanced following CAF + CMX compared to CAF alone. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Aim To evaluate the clinical outcomes of the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) in combination with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of localized recession defects. Material & Methods In a multicentre single-blinded, randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial, 90 recessions (Miller I, II) in 45 patients received either CAF + CM or CAF alone. Results At 6 months, root coverage (primary outcome) was 75.29% for test and 72.66% for control defects (p = 0.169), with 36% of test and 31% of control defects exhibiting complete coverage. The increase in mean width of keratinized tissue (KT) was higher in test (from 1.97 to 2.90 mm) than in control defects (from 2.00 to 2.57 mm) (p = 0.036). Likewise, test sites had more gain in gingival thickness (GT) (0.59 mm) than control sites (0.34 mm) (p = 0.003). Larger (≥3 mm) recessions (n = 35 patients) treated with CM showed higher root coverage (72.03% versus 66.16%, p = 0.043), as well as more gain in KT and GT. Conclusions CAF + CM was not superior with regard to root coverage, but enhanced gingival thickness and width of keratinized tissue when compared with CAF alone. For the coverage of larger defects, CAF + CM was more effective.