Patient-reported outcomes and aesthetic evaluation of root coverage procedures: a 12-month follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 43; no. 12; pp. 1132 - 1141
• Main Authors: Stefanini, Martina, Jepsen, Karin, de Sanctis, Massimo, Baldini, Nicola, Greven, Björn, Heinz, Bernd, Wennström, Jan, Cassel, Björn, Vignoletti, Fabio, Sanz, Mariano, Jepsen, Søren, Zucchelli, Giovanni
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2016
• Subjects: aesthetics; Clinical outcomes; collagen (matrix); Dentistry; gingival recession; keratinized tissue; Odontologi; patient-centred outcomes; patient-reported outcomes; root coverage; tissue regeneration; xenograft; root coverage; patient-reported outcomes; tissue regeneration; gingival recession; patient-centred outcomes; xenograft; keratinized tissue; collagen (matrix); aesthetics
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12626

Aim To assess patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), aesthetics and stability of root coverage procedures from a previous 6‐month RCT after 1 year. Material & Methods Forty‐five patients (90 recessions) had received a coronally advanced flap (CAF = control) only or a xenogeneic collagen matrix in addition (CAF + CMX = test). Visual analogue scales (VAS) and questionnaires were used for PROMs and the root coverage aesthetic score (RES) for professional aesthetic evaluations. Results VAS scores (patient satisfaction) amounted to 8.58 ± 1.86 (test) versus 8.38 ± 2.46 (control). Six patients preferred CAF + CMX concerning surgical procedure and aesthetics, six preferred CAF and 29 were equally satisfied. RES was 7.85 ± 2.42 for the test group versus 7.34 ± 2.90 for the controls. Root coverage (RC) was 76.28% for test and 75.05% for control defects. The mean increase in keratinized tissue width was higher in test (from 1.97 to 3.02 mm) than in controls (from 2.00 to 2.64 mm) (p = 0.0413). Likewise, test sites showed more gain in gingival thickness (0.52 mm) than control sites (0.27 mm) (p = 0.0023). Compared to 6 months, clinical outcomes were stable. Conclusions Results for PROMs, RES and RC did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Thickness and width of keratinized tissue were enhanced following CAF + CMX compared to CAF alone.