A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Treatment of Localized Gingival Recession with an Enamel Matrix Protein-Coated Xenogeneic Dermal Matrix: A Randomized Controlled Trial. | LitMetric

Treatment of Localized Gingival Recession with an Enamel Matrix Protein-Coated Xenogeneic Dermal Matrix: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Materials (Basel)

Division of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Prosthodontics, University Clinic of Dental Medicine and Oral Health, Medical University of Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.

Published: August 2024


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the influence of the additional use of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) in the treatment of gingival recession defects using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) by means of digital and clinical assessment methods. In this prospective randomized controlled study, recession height and area, width and thickness of keratinized gingiva, pocket probing depth, and clinical attachment levels were measured at the baseline and followed up for one year. Fifteen patients ( = 15) with 24 gingival recession defects were treated between 2019 and 2021. On average, the digitally assessed root coverage of the control group (CAF + XDM) was not significantly different compared to the test group (CAF + XDM + EMD), with 69 ± 28% and 36 ± 32%, respectively ( = 0.094). One year postoperatively, there were no differences found regarding keratinized tissue width (KTW) between the control group and test group ( = 0.690). However, the control group showed superior results in the thickness of keratinized gingiva ( = 0.044). The present study showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the root coverage results in the CAF + XDM + EMD group compared to the CAF + XDM group. The adjunctive use of EMD to a CAF and XDM in the treatment of gingival recession defects does not appear to have any clinical benefit.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11355834PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma17163985DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

caf xdm
20
gingival recession
16
recession defects
12
control group
12
enamel matrix
8
xenogeneic dermal
8
dermal matrix
8
randomized controlled
8
treatment gingival
8
thickness keratinized
8

Similar Publications