Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMedina, R.A.
dc.contributor.authorValencia, C.A.
dc.contributor.authorReyes, C.R.
dc.contributor.authorMendoza, J.B.
dc.contributor.authorLópez, P.L.T.
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-31T18:48:15Z
dc.date.available2025-10-31T18:48:15Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.urihttp://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-75072022000200004
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12805/6371
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Gingival recession is a very common gum condition which may result in aesthetic alterations and dentin hypersensitivity, and increase the probability of cervical lesions. It is necessary to cover the root surface using periodontal regeneration techniques. Objective: Compare the amount of root coverage, probing depth and clinical insertion level, using coronally repositioned flap techniques with and without connective tissue graft in patients with Miller I and II gingival recessions. Methods: A total 16 patients with Miller class I and II gingival recessions were included in the study, from whom 50 teeth were selected which had been treated surgically to cover the recessions. The techniques used were coronally repositioned flap with and without connective tissue graft. Clinical measurements were compared at the start of the postoperative period and three months later. Results: Three months after surgery, root coverage, probing depth and clinical insertion level were 0.96 ± 1.33; 0.87 ± 0.63; 1.83 ± 1.7, respectively, for coronally repositioned flap with connective tissue graft, and 1.44 ± 1.19; 1.04 ± 0.52; 2.48 ± 1.48, respectively, for coronally repositioned flap. Root coverage intergroup comparison did not find any significant differences (p = 0.11). However, intergroup comparison of probing depth (p = 0.04) and clinical insertion level (p = 0.001), and all the intragroup clinical measurements (p = 0.001) did find significant differences. Conclusions: Coronally repositioned flap technique with and without connective tissue graft showed significant differences in terms of probing depth and clinical insertion level in Miller I and II gingival recessions. At three months’ follow-up, no root coverage significant differences were observed for either technique.en_US
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherEditorial Ciencias Médicas
dc.relation.ispartofurn:issn:0034-7507
dc.rightshttps://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.subjectImplant Innovations in Orthodontics and Bone Healthen_US
dc.subjectGingival Recession and Soft Tissue Managementen_US
dc.titleColgajo de reposición coronal, con y sin injerto de tejido conectivo, para tratar recesiones gingivaleses_PE
dc.title.alternativeCoronally repositioned flap with and without connective tissue graft to treat gingival recessionen_US
dc.typehttps://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.subject.ocdehttps://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.14
dc.type.otherResearch article
dc.identifier.journalRevista Cubana de Estomatologia
dc.type.versionhttps://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2