ABSTRACT
Objective @#To evaluate the clinical effect of enamel matrix derivative(EMD) assisted with connective tissue graft(CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession.@*Methods @#Search The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Wanfang Public Database,VIP database and CNKI to search for randomized controlled trials of EMD in the treatment of gingival recession. The search period is from the establishment of the databases to October 3, 2022. The test group was treated with EMD+CTG, while the control group was treated with CTG alone. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stat12.0.@*Results@# Meta analysis results showed that only 12 months after treatment, there was a statistically significant difference in the PD and CAL outcome indicators between the EMD assisted treatment group and the control group [MDPD=-0.10, 95% CI (-0.19, -0.01), P = 0.03], [MDCAL=-0.38, 95% CI(-0.71, -0.04), P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference between the test group and the control group in other indicators.@*Conclusion @#EMD assisted CTG in the treatment of gingival recession may be beneficial to the reduction of PD and CAL.
ABSTRACT
Objective @#To construct a Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession animal model and to lay the foundation for exploring the treatment of Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession. @*Methods@#Two adult male beagle dogs were selected, and four teeth from each beagle dog were selected to establish an experimental Miller class Ⅲ gingival recession model. The root surface was revealed by removing the soft and hard tissues of the buccal side. The success of the model was determined by measuring the vertical gingival retraction (VGR), horizontal retraction (HGR), keratosis tissue width (KTW), gingival tissue thickness (GTT), and probing depth (PD) at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after modeling. @*Results@#After observing the clinical indexes, the PDs before and after the modeling were all smaller than 3 mm and no deep-period pockets were formed. The VGR before modeling was 0 mm, and the VGR range after modeling was 5-6.38 mm. A comparison of the before and after modeling results showed that this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The postoperative VGR results were grouped according to timepoint. A comparison between the two groups showed that the differences at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The HGR before the modeling was 0 mm, and the HGR fluctuated around 10.5 mm after the modeling, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The HGR results were grouped by timepoint after surgery, and a one-way analysis of showed that the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The KTW range before modeling was 6~9 mm, and it fluctuated around 2 mm after modeling, and this difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The KTW results were grouped by timepoint after surgery, and they indicated that significant differences did not occur between the groups postoperatively (P > 0.05). The pre-modeling GTT was 1.5 mm, and the GTT range after modeling was 1.5-2 mm. The preoperative and postoperative GTT results were grouped by timepoint, and the results showed that significant differences did not occur between 1 week and 2 weeks after surgery (P = 0.123), although a statistically significant difference was observed at 1 week postoperatively between this group and the other groups (P < 0.05).@*Conclusion@#The method used in this experiment can successfully build a Miller class III gingival recession animal model, and the model remains stable after wound healing.