| ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 4 | Page : 313-322 |
|
|
Comparative evaluation of bioabsorbable collagen membrane and platelet-rich fibrin membrane in the treatment of localized gingival recession: A randomized clinical trial
Pratibha Shashikumar, Ullas Pezhugattil Menon, Swet Nisha, Pragyan Mohanty, Sourav Chandra
Department of Periodontology, J.S.S. Dental College & Hospital, J.S.S. Academy of Higher Education & Research, Mysuru, Karnataka, India
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Swet Nisha
Room No. 9, Department of Periodontology, J.S.S. Dental College & Hospital, J.S.S. Academy of Higher Education & Research, Mysuru, Karnataka.
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_259_19
|
|
|
Aim: Gingival recession leads to root surface exposure and dentin hypersensitivity, which might cause an aesthetic impairment. This randomized trial was carried out for comparison and evaluation of the utility of bioresorbable collagen membrane (CM) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane in the treatment of localized gingival recession. Materials and Methods: A total of 36 subjects having localized gingival recession were randomly allocated from Department of Periodontology, Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeshwara Dental College and Hospital, Mysuru, Karnataka, India, in two treatment groups, namely coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with bioresorbable CM and CAF combined with PRF membrane. Plaque index, recession height (REC) and width of keratinized gingiva, and clinical attachment level were recorded at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years. Results: The primary outcomes of the study were REC and complete root coverage (CRC). In the CAF + CM group, at the baseline, the residual REC was 3.01 ± 0.98 mm, after 1 year, it was 1.15 ± 0.88 mm, and 5 years later, it was 1.10 ± 1.04 mm; and in the CAF + PRF group, at the baseline, REC was 2.90 ± 0.52 mm, after 1 year, it was 0.45 ± 0.67 mm, and after 5 years, it was 0.38 ± 0.56 mm. Follow-up of 5 years showed statistically significant differences between the groups. After 5 years of follow up, in CAF + CM group, 60% of teeth showed CRC, and in CAF + PRF membrane group, 70% of teeth showed CRC. When we considered REC, statistical significant difference was observed between both the groups for the localized recession treatment; after 5 years, percentage of teeth presenting CRC showed no significant difference. Follow-up of 5 years showed differences, which was statistically significant between the groups. Conclusion: Though the usage of both the membranes showed satisfactory results, the PRF membrane promised to be a better alternative to CM. Also, PRF membrane could be a cost-effective alternative in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
