Impact of interleukin 1 gene polymorphism and smoking on long-term stability following gingival recession treatment.

Risk factors such as smoking, genetic factors, and tissue biotype play an important role in the etiology, predictability, and long-term stability of gingival recession treatment. This study was designed to evaluate the influence of interleukin 1 (IL-1) polymorphism and smoking on the stability of gingival recession treatment after 1 and 3 years. All patients (n = 55) were treated for type I and II recession defects using a connective tissue graft. Clinical evaluations were performed, which included assessment of vertical recession depth, gingival inflammation, and clinical attachment level. A fingerstick blood sample was collected using specially provided DNA filter paper and mailed for processing in a laboratory using polymerase chain reaction-based methodology. The results indicated that 19 subjects were genotype positive (34.5%). Treatment of the localized recessions was effective and provided a similar amount of coverage in genotype-positive and genotype-negative subjects within smoking and nonsmoking groups after 1 year. In a 3-year period, nonsmoking patients with positive IL-1 genotype lost approximately 20% of the root coverage gained at 1 year and were almost four times more inferior compared with genotype-negative patients. Patients who smoked and had a positive IL-1 genotype lost approximately 35% of the gained root coverage. IL-1 polymorphism and smoking habit did not affect gingival recession treatment at 1 year but had a great impact on long-term stability.

Use of platelet-rich fibrin membrane following treatment of gingival recession: a randomized clinical trial.

This 6-month randomized controlled clinical study primarily aimed to compare the results achieved by the use of a platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane or connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession and to evaluate the clinical impact of PRF on early wound healing and subjective patient discomfort. Use of a PRF membrane in gingival recession treatment provided acceptable clinical results, followed by enhanced wound healing and decreased subjective patient discomfort compared to CTG-treated gingival recessions. No difference could be found between PRF and CTG procedures in gingival recession therapy, except for a greater gain in keratinized tissue width obtained in the CTG group and enhanced wound healing associated with the PRF group.

The coronally advanced flap in combination with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of gingival recession: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin membrane used in combination with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and to compare it with the use of an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in combination with a coronally advanced flap in gingival recession treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 20 split-mouth cases of maxillary anterior teeth or bicuspids presenting with Miller Class I or II gingival recession were treated with a CAF combined with a platelet-rich fibrin membrane (PRF group) or with EMD (EMD group) placed under a CAF. The following parameters were measured at baseline and at 12 months post treatment: gingival recession (GR), apicocoronal width of the keratinized tissue (WKT), and probing depth (PD). RESULTS: Complete rot coverage in the PRF group was 65% (13 out of 20 recessions) and 60% in the EMD group (12 out of 20 recessions). GR was 4.10 ± 1.05 mm in the PRF group and 3.90 ± 1.00 mm in the EMD group at baseline, and 1.05 ± 0.45 mm in the PRF group and 1.15 ± 0.65 mm in the EMD group at 12 months. The difference observed between the tow groups at 12 months was statistically significant. Average root coverage was 70.5% in the EMD group and 72.1% in the PRF group. WKT was 1.30 ± 0.56 mm in the EMD group and 1.45 ± 0.86 mm in the PRF group at baseline, and 1.90 ± 0.81 mm in the EMD group and 1.62 ± 0.28 mm in the PRF group at 12 months. The difference observed between the two groups at 12 months was not statistically significant. Twelve-month changes in PD were not significantly different between the two groups. The pain intensity was statistically different between the two groups. The pain intensity was statistically different between groups for the first 5 days, favoring the PRF group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study did not succeed in demonstrating any clinical advantage of the use of PRF compared to EMD in the coverage of gingival recession with the CAF procedure. The EMD group showed a higher success rate in increasing WKT than did the PRF group.

[Clinical impact of platelet rich plasma in treatment of gingival recessions].

INTRODUCTION: Root coverage supported with complete regeneration of lost periodontal tissues represents the ultimate goal of gingival recession treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate clinical effectiveness of platelet rich plasma gel (PRP) with connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession. METHOD: 15 gingival recessions Miller class I or II were treated with CTG and PRP (group PRP). Connective tissue graft was harvested from the premolar region using trap door technique. After elevation of the flap, the regional bone and root surface were smeared with activated PRP gel. CTG was also irrigated with PRP gel before placement over the exposed root surface and local bone. Fixed CTG was covered with a coronally advanced flap. The same number of gingival recessions were treated with CTG in combination with the coronally advanced flap with no PRP gel (group TVT). Clinical recordings included recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and keratinized tissue width (KT) before and 1 year after mucogingival surgical treatment. RESULTS: Mean value of RD was significantly decreased from 4.93 +/- 0.86 mm to 0.60 +/- 0.37 (p < 0.01) with CTG and PRP and from 4.76 +/- 0.74 mm to 0.63 +/- 0.29 mm (p < 0.01) in CTG group. This difference was not statistically significant. Results of the keratinized tissue width showed significant increase from 0.88 +/- 0.30 mm presurgery to 3.78 +/- 0.49 mm (p < 0.01) six months after treatment in PRP group and from 0.90 +/- 0.34 mm to 3.15 +/- 0.41 in TVT group (p < 0.01). This difference was statistically significant (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between treatment groups in CAL and PD. CONCLUSION: Clinical results validate both procedures as effective and highly predictable surgical techniques in solving gingival recession problem. Histological evaluation may confirm advantage of PRP use related to regeneration of periodontal tissues.