Treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recession

Gingival recession is a prevalent mucogingival deformity and condition associated with teeth, often occurring in patterns involving multiple adjacent sites. This presentation by the patient is frequently framed as an aesthetic concern, because of the imbalance in white and pink esthetic proportions, or related to a complaint of dentin hypersensitivity. The clinician is required to understand the etiologic factors specific to this recession pattern. Modification or management of these factors contributing to multiple adjacent gingival recession should be included as part of the overall treatment plan to increase efficacy of surgical root coverage procedures. The current treatment options for multiple gingival recession include tunneling and coronally advanced flap techniques with varying technical modifications. The aim of this narrative review is to explore the development of these procedures utilized to manage patients presenting with multiple adjacent gingival recession

Evaluation of poly lactic-co-glycolic acid-coated β-tricalcium phosphate for alveolar ridge preservation: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Alveolar ridge preservation via socket grafting (ARP-SG) is indicated to attenuate physiologic alveolar bone resorption as a consequence of tooth extraction. However, a specific bone grafting material that is patently superior has not been identified yet. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a moldable alloplastic graft, Poly Lactic-Co-Glycolic Acid-Coated β-Tricalcium Phosphate (PLGA-β-TCP), for ARP purposes [Group A] compared to freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) particles covered with a rapidly absorbable collagen dressing (RACD) (Group B) in function of a panel of radiographic, histomorphometric, and implant-related outcomes. METHODS Patients in need of extraction of a single posterior tooth (premolar or molar) and subsequent replacement with a dental implant were recruited and randomly allocated into one of the two treatment groups. Follow-up visits took place at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 weeks. Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained at baseline and at 16 weeks. Sites were re-entered at 20 weeks for bone core biopsy harvesting and subsequent implant placement. After delivery of the final implant-supported restoration, follow-up visits were scheduled at 6 and 12 months to monitor peri-implant tissue health and marginal bone levels using standardized intraoral periapical radiographs. RESULTS A total of 45 patients were initially enrolled in the study, of whom 43 received an implant and 32 completed the study. Healing was uneventful in all sites after ARP-SG and implant placement. No site required bone augmentation to allow for implant placement. CBCT scan analyses showed no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of reduction of horizontal width, midbuccal / midlingual height and ridge volume. Histomorphometric assessments revealed a statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of mineralized tissue formation (Group A = 27.0% ± 22.1% versus Group B = 38.2% ± 12.5%; P < 0.05). On the contrary, no significant differences were observed regarding percent of remaining bone grafting material and non-mineralized tissue. No implant failed throughout the study period and marginal bone level change was negligible in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Although a higher proportion of mineralized tissue was associated with the use of FDBA+RACD compared to PLGA-β-TCP alone, both ARP-SG approaches rendered comparable outcomes in terms of maintenance of alveolar bone dimensions, feasibility of implant placement, implant survival, and peri-implant bone level stability up to 12 months post-loading

Repeated delivery of chlorhexidine chips for the treatment of peri‐implantitis: A multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial

BackgroundPeri‐implantitis is a challenging condition to manage and is frequently treated using non‐surgical debridement. The local delivery of antimicrobial agents has demonstrated benefit in mild to moderate cases of peri‐implantitis. This study compared the safety and efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg chip (CHX chips) as an adjunctive treatment to subgingival debridement in patients afflicted with peri‐implantitis.MethodsA multicenter, randomized, single‐blind, two‐arm, parallel Phase‐3 study was conducted. Peri‐implantitis patients with implant pocket depths (IPD) of 5‐8 mm underwent subgingival implant surface debridement followed by repeated bi‐weekly supragingival plaque removal and chlorhexidine chips application (ChxC group) for 12 weeks, or similar therapy but without application of ChxC (control group). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Plaque and gingival indices were measured at every visit whereas IPD, recession, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 8, 12, 16, 24 week.ResultsA total of 290 patients were included: 146 in the ChxC group and 144 in the control. At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in IPD (P = 0.01) was measured in the ChxC group (1.76 ± 1.13 mm) compared with the control group (1.54 ± 1.13 mm). IPD reduction of ≥2 mm was found in 59% and 47.2% of the implants in the ChxC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Changes in gingival recession (0.29 ± 0.68 mm versus 0.15 ± 0.55 mm, P = 0.015) and relative attachment gain (1.47 ± 1.32 mm and 1.39 ± 1.27 mm, P = 0.0017) were significantly larger in the ChxC group. Patients in the ChxC group that were < 65 years exhibited significantly better responses (P < 0.02); likewise, non‐smokers had similarly better response (P < 0.02). Both protocols were well tolerated, and no severe treatment‐related adverse events were recorded throughout the study.ConclusionsPatients with peri‐implantitis that were treated with an intensive treatment protocol of bi‐weekly supragingival plaque removal and local application of chlorhexidine chips had greater mean IPD reduction and greater percentile of sites with IPD reduction of ≥2 mm as compared with bi‐weekly supra‐gingival plaque removal.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166183/1/jper10672.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/166183/2/jper10672_am.pd