Comparison between Buccal Fat Pad Versus Platelet Rich Fibrin Using Vestibular Incision Subperiosteal Tunnel Access Technique in the Treatment of Gingival Recession Class II | ||||
| Minia Journal of Medical Research | ||||
| Volume 32, Issue 3, July 2021, Page 20-28 PDF (451.52 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjmr.2021.241629 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Aya Allah K. Abd El-al; Ahmed A. Moustafa; Ahmed A. Khalil | ||||
| Department of Oral Diagnosis and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Minya University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Gingival recession is a common condition that involves apical migration of the gingival margin leading to exposure of the root surfaces. The condition has a multifactorial etiology and is commonly associated with trauma caused by inappropriate brushing techniques and damage caused by periodontal disease. If not managed, the exposed root surface can become prone to the development of root caries, hype and sensitivity and can also compromise the patient aesthetically when the defect sites are present in the aesthetic zone. Aim of the study: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Non-pedicled buccal fat pad versus Platelet-rich fibrin in the treatment of Miller class II gingival recession us the ing vestibular Incision Subperiosteal Tunnel Access Technique. Patients and methods: This study was conducted on 40 patients with class II gingival recession in the anterior or premolar segment. The entire patient was selected from the outpatient clinic of the Oral Medicine, Oral Diagnosis, and Periodontology Department. Faculty of Dentistry, Minya University. Forty patients with gingival recession class II were divided randomly into two groups: Group I: (20 defects) using VISTA technique with Non- pedicled buccal fat pad (NPBFP), Group II: (20 defects) using VISTA technique with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF). Results: In both groups, all clinical parameters were statistically significant from the preoperative period till 6 months follow-up period. In comparison between the two groups after 6 month follow up period, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding all clinical parameters except the percentage of root coverage; there was a significant increase in the percentage of root coverage after 3 and 6 months follow up period in group II with p-value was less than 0.05. Conclusion: Both PRF membrane and NPBFP are effective in the management of Class II gingival recession defects using VISTA technique. PRF group has better results regarding the percentage of root coverage than NPBPF group after 3 and 6 months follow up. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Gingival recession (GR); Vestibular Incision subperiosteal Tunnel Access (VISTA); Platelet Rich fibrin (PRF); non-pedicled buccal fat pad (NPBFP) | ||||
|
Supplementary Files
|
||||
|
Statistics Article View: 67 PDF Download: 234 |
||||
