Potential of bioactive glass particles of different size ranges to affect bone formation in interproximal periodontal defects in dogs.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the potential of bioactive glass particles of different size ranges to affect bone formation in periodontal defects, using the guided tissue regeneration model in dogs. METHODS: In six dogs, 2-wall intrabony periodontal defects were surgically created and chronified on the mesial surfaces of mandibular third premolars and first molars bilaterally. After 1 month, each defect was randomly assigned to treatment with bioabsorbable membrane in association with bioactive glass with particle sizes between 300 and 355 microm (group 1) or between 90 and 710 microm (group 2), membrane alone (group 3), or negative control (group 4). The dogs were sacrificed 12 weeks after surgeries, and histomorphometric measurements were made of the areas of newly formed bone, new mineralized bone, and bioactive glass particle remnants. RESULTS: With regard to the area of bioactive glass particle remnants, there was a statistically significant difference between groups 1 and 2, favoring group 1. There were greater areas of mineralized bone in groups 1 and 2 compared to groups 3 and 4 (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: The bioactive glass particles of small size range underwent faster resorption and substitution by new bone than the larger particles, and the use of bioactive glass particles favored the formation of mineralized bone.

Comparison between two surgical techniques for root coverage with an acellular dermal matrix graft.

AIM: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical study was to compare two surgical techniques with the acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) to evaluate which technique could provide better root coverage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I gingival recession areas were selected. In each patient, one recession area was randomly assigned to the control group, while the contra-lateral recession area was assigned to the test group. The ADMG was used in both groups. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical-releasing incisions, and the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated before the surgeries and after 12 months were: gingival recession height, probing depth, relative clinical attachment level and the width and thickness of keratinized tissue. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for all parameters at baseline. After 12 months, there was a statistically significant reduction in recession height in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference between the techniques with regard to root coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical techniques provided significant reduction in gingival recession height after 12 months, and similar results in relation to root coverage.

Comparison of two surgical procedures for use of the acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical investigation was to compare two surgical techniques for root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft to evaluate which technique provided better root coverage, a better esthetic result, and less postoperative discomfort. METHODS: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were selected. Fifteen pairs of recessions were treated and assigned randomly to the test group, and the contralateral recessions were assigned to the control group. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical releasing incisions; the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without vertical releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated were probing depth, relative clinical attachment level, gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue, thickness of keratinized tissue, esthetic result, and pain evaluation. The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, all parameters were similar for both groups. At 6 months, a statistically significant greater reduction in GR favored the control group. The percentage of root coverage was 68.98% and 84.81% for the test and control groups, respectively. The esthetic result was equivalent between the groups, and all patients tolerated both procedures well. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques provided significant root coverage, good esthetic results, and similar levels of postoperative discomfort. However, the control technique had statistically significantly better results for root coverage of localized gingival recessions.