Assessment of non-carious root surface defects in areas of gingival recession: A descriptive study

Periodontal Evaluation for a New Alkasite Restorative Material in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the periodontal condition adjacent to Cention N (CN) restorations applied for noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) compared with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) restorations in terms of plaque accumulation, attachment loss, and gingival inflammation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a double-blind split-mouth three-armed randomized-controlled clinical trial. The study arms are RM-GIC (FUJI II LC), CN + adhesive system, and CN + retentive groove. The study included 25 restorations per arm. Follow-ups were performed at 1 week, 3, 6, and 9 months after the application of the restorations. The periodontal condition was evaluated using the plaque index (PI), the bleeding on probing index (BOP), and the probing depth (PD). Appropriate tests were used to perform statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between Cention N and RM-GIC regarding the studied variables. However, after the application of the restorations, it was noted that the PI and the PD mean values increased. The average increase after 9 months was 0.06 and 0.34 for PI and PD, respectively, with that of PD being significant. It was also noted that the percentage of positive BOP sites increased at the 1-week follow-up for all study groups and afterward dropped to near preintervention values at the 3-month and later follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

The two ion-releasing materials Cention N and RM-GIC have a comparable and clinically acceptable effect on the gingival tissue when restoring NCCLs. The combined effect of the gingival retraction cord and the rubber dam clamp on the periodontal tissues might be more important to consider, especially in relation to the probing depth. Future long-term studies are needed to evaluate the effect of Cention N on the subgingival biofilm in comparison with nonion-releasing restorative materials, and subsequently, its effect on gingival inflammation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial was registered in clinicaltrial.gov clinical registry under protocol #NCT05593159.

Current state about root coverage using soft-tissue substitutes in the presence of noncarious cervical lesions: A literature review

About half of the cases of gingival recession are associated with the noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL), resulting in combined defects (CDs). NCCL negatively affects the root coverage outcomes. In addition, considering the morbidity associated with graft harvesting, soft-tissue substitutes (STSs) appeared as a suitable option for connective tissue grafts for surgical root coverage. Currently, the literature addressing the therapy of CDs employing STSs is scarce. Thus, the present review aimed to update the literature and outline the future perspectives about root coverage of CDs using STSs. A detailed literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, LILACS, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases using keywords and Boolean operators. Randomized clinical trials (2) and case reports (6) were included. None of the selected studies reported any adverse effect using STSs. Based on the limited evidence available, we cannot state that STSs may benefit the periodontal clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the long-term outcomes, surgical approaches, and restorative protocols.

Comparison of coronally advanced versus semilunar coronally repositioned flap in the management of maxillary gingival recessions

Objectives

Maxillary gingival recessions can be managed by both semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SLCRF) and coronally advanced flap (CAF). The objective of this study was to compare SLRCF and CAF in terms of wound healing and periodontal parameters in the presence of magnification.

Materials and methods

Thirty patients with Miller’s class I gingival recession in maxillary anteriors and premolars were assigned to 2 groups including SLCRF and CAF. All procedures were performed using 2.5× magnifying loupes. Wound healing and periodontal clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th week.

Results

No significant difference was observed in wound healing and mean percentage root coverage in both the groups at 12th week (p > 0.05). However, SLCRF showed a statistically significant reduction in percentage of root coverage (PRC) at 12th week compared to 2nd week (p < 0.05). A significant gain in Clinical attachment level, width of keratinised tissue and a significant reduction in Recession Depth and Probing Depth were seen in both the groups at 12th week.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study, both techniques resulted in similar wound healing at 12th week with the use of magnification. CAF provided more root coverage compared to SLCRF technique in the maxillary class I gingival recession defects.