Restauraciones Clases v Con Injerto De Tejido Conectivo

J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 791–798 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01441.x

Connective tissue graft plus resinmodified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: a randomized-controlled clinical trial
´nior FH, Sallum AW and Santamaria MP, Ambrosano GMB, Casati MZ, Nociti Ju Sallum EA. Connective tissue graft plus resin-modifiedglass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: a randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 791–798. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01441.x. Abstract Background: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recession, associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a connectivetissue graft (CTG) alone, or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CTG1R). Materials and Methods: Forty patients presenting Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG1R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR),clinical attachment level (CAL) and cervical lesion height (CLH) coverage were measured at baseline and 45 days, and 2, 3 and 6 months after treatment. Results: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, RGR and CAL, after 6 months. The percentages of CLH covered were 74.88 Æ 8.66% forCTG and 70.76 Æ 9.81% for CTG1R (p40.05). The estimated root coverage was 91.91 Æ 17.76% for CTG and 88.64 Æ 11.9% for CTG1R (p40.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage. The presence of the glass ionomer restoration may not prevent the root coverage achieved by CTG.

´ Mauro Pedrine Santamaria1,Glaucia Maria Bovi Ambrosano2, Marcio Zaffalon Casati1, Francisco ˆ ´ Humberto Nociti Junior1, Antonio ˆ Wilson Sallum1 and Enilson Antonio Sallum1
Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Division of Periodontics; 2 Departmentof Social Dentistry, Division of Biostatistics, Piracicaba Dental School, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
1

Key words: cemento-enameljunction; gingival recession/surgery; glass ionomer cement; surgical flap; tooth abrasion. Accepted for publication 20 May 2009

Conflict of interest and source of funding statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this study. The authors would like to thank the Foundation for the Development of Personnel in Higher Education – CAPES for supporting Dr. Mauro P. Santamaria. Dr.Enilson A. Sallum would like to thank CNPQ for support (#300817/2007-0).
r 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S

During the past few decades, the periodontal literature has presented a huge number of clinical trials aimed to evaluate different surgical approaches for root coverage. It has been recognized that buccal gingival recession, presenting no loss of inter-proximal periodontal attachment and bone(Miller Class I and II), can be predictably covered by a variety of surgical procedures (Roccuz-

zo et al. 2002, Cairo et al. 2008). The main outcomes of these studies were to evaluate the complete root coverage and percentage of root coverage achieved by the procedures. For this, the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) was used as the reference point. It has also been recognized that gingivalrecession is frequently associated with cervical wear. Sangnes & Gjermo

791

792

Santamaria et al.
derived from randomized-controlled clinical trials on the ability of other surgical procedures to treat gingival recession, associated with a non-carious cervical lesion. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the outcome of connective tissue graft (CTG) alone or in combination...