Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ref 2
Ref 2
qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 303
Ann Periodontol
Background: A variety of soft tissue augmentation procedures directed at root coverage have been documented in the literature utilizing autogenous or allogenic soft tissue grafting or guided tissue regeneration
(GTR).
Rationale: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the literature regarding the efficacies of
various surgical gingival augmentation procedures relative to clinical and patient-oriented outcomes.
Focused Question: What is the effect of surgical therapy for root coverage in patients with gingival recession compared with other treatment modalities or baseline values?
Search Protocol: PubMed and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register were searched to identify
human studies in English investigating the therapeutic use of a soft tissue surgical procedure to treat gingival recession. Searches were performed for articles published by April 2002.
Selection Criteria: Initial screening of identified abstracts accepted all studies evaluating surgical intervention of gingival recession. Independent review by 2 reviewers evaluated full-text reports regarding study
characteristics. Only those studies determined to be randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the
final analysis.
Data Analysis and Collection: Outcome measures included changes in root coverage, clinical attachment
levels (CAL), probing depth (PD), and width of keratinized tissue (KT). The only data suitable for metaanalysis were comparisons of the efficacy of connective tissue grafts with GTR.
Main Results
1. Thirty-two articles (total study population: 687) met the criteria for RCTs: 11 (population: 286) related to
various autogenous soft tissue augmentation procedures; 18 (population: 360) to GTR; and 3 (population: 41)
to allogenic soft tissue augmentation.
2. Meta-analysis identified greater gains in both root coverage and keratinized tissue width for connective
tissue graft procedures compared to GTR.
3. No other data were compatible with meta-analysis.
Reviewers Conclusions
1. Soft tissue augmentation procedures are effective means of obtaining root coverage.
2. Connective grafting techniques appear to have an advantage over GTR.
3. There is a need for further efficacy studies and for investigation of these procedures relative to patientoriented outcomes such as esthetics, root sensitivity, and postoperative morbidities.
Ann Periodontol 2003;8:303-320.
KEY WORDS
Grafts, soft tissue; guided tissue regeneration; tooth root/surgery; periodontal diseases/surgery;
review literature; meta-analysis.
303
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 304
BACKGROUND
Periodontal therapy has historically been directed primarily at the elimination of disease and the maintenance
of a functional, healthy dentition and supporting tissues.
However, more recently periodontal therapy, consistent
with dental therapy in general, is increasingly directed
at esthetic outcomes for patients, which extend beyond
tooth replacement and tooth color to include the soft
tissue component framing the dentition.
Probably one of the most common esthetic concerns associated with the periodontal tissues is gingival
recession. Gingival recession may be associated with
anatomic factors, inflammatory conditions, or trauma.
The progression of recession defects warrants both the
investigation of etiologic factors and the consideration
of therapeutic actions directed at minimizing the progression of the apical movement of the gingival margin.
In many cases, these therapies directed at stopping
the progression also enhance the esthetic appearance
of the tissues. Root surface exposure resulting from
gingival recession may also produce hypersensitivity;
that is, a region of heightened temperature or tactile
sensitivity along the exposed root surface. Covering
the exposed root surface may decrease these symptoms. Additionally, there may be circumstances where
recession defects create anatomic contours or a lack
of keratinized tissue limiting proper plaque removal.
Any of these indications, including esthetics, progression of the defect, hypersensitivity, or difficulties with
oral hygiene may support the use of periodontal plastic
surgical procedures.
Periodontal plastic surgery includes periodontal
surgical procedures performed to prevent, correct, or eliminate anatomical, developmental, traumatic, or plaqueinduced disease-related defects in the gingiva or alveolar
mucosa.1 The adoption of the plastic surgery terminology in itself suggests the increasing importance of
the supporting tissues in the esthetics of the dentition.
There are multiple periodontal plastic surgery approaches documented in the literature for the treatment
of gingival recession defects. These treatment approaches generally include the manipulation of the patients
tissues to augment the soft tissues and cover the
exposed root surface. Flap positioning allows for the
maintenance of a vascular blood supply to the tissue,
whereas a complete removal of autogenous graft tissue
from intact vascular support to a distinct location
requires the reformation of vascular supply to the grafted
tissue. These grafting procedures may also take advantage of tissues procured in an allogeneic manner. More
recently, the use of guided tissue regeneration (GTR)
techniques have been utilized in re-establishing soft
tissue dimensions over areas of recession. Each of these
treatment approaches has been documented in the
literature as having therapeutic benefit. There are multiple surgical techniques, materials, and root surface
304
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 305
Ann Periodontol
Exclusion criteria: Reports clearly not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded, otherwise articles were
considered in a secondary review.
Screening Procedures
Preliminary screening of identified studies included an
independent assessment by the primary reviewer (TWO).
Review of these references was based on title and abstract information.
Secondary review of all identified references, conducted in an independent manner by the primary
(TWO) and secondary (MR) reviewers, involved the
review of full text versions of the studies identified in
the initial screening. Each reviewer independently
assessed studies for qualitative characteristics using
a standardized assessment form (Fig. 1). All studies
excluded by both reviewers were excluded from further
consideration. Disagreements between examiners were
resolved following joint review and discussion by the
examiners. Only studies determined to be randomized
controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were considered in the
final analysis.
Study participants: Studies included subjects having identified gingival recession defects of the soft tissue margin exposing the root surface of a tooth.
Interventions. Surgical therapy interventions included
all surgical therapies aimed at treating gingival recession defects and specifically included the use of autogenous and allogeneic soft tissue grafts and guided
tissue regeneration procedures.
Outcomes: Primary outcome measures included
patient attitude toward defect, procedures, and results,
including changes in esthetics, root surface sensitivity,
and therapeutic morbidity. Additionally, surrogate measures included percentage of sites with complete root
coverage, changes in gingival recession, probing depth
(PD), clinical attachment levels (CAL), and amount of
keratinized tissue.
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 306
teen12,13,20,21,24,25,28,32,34,44,46,49,52,53,68,72,74,87 of the 32
articles evaluated GTR procedures aimed at soft tissue
augmentation. These studies evaluated both bioabsorbable and non-resorbable materials (Table 2, page
308). The 3 remaining studies9,14,18 evaluated the use
of allogeneic soft tissue grafting materials (Table 3, page
310). The studies evaluated the effects of these various
therapies from 3 months postsurgically to as long as 6
years. As may be expected, those studies with the
longest follow-up period also had the greatest ranges in
evaluation periods. The most consistent comparison
among the studies was a control group of a connective
tissue graft compared to a therapeutic group of GTR (9
studies9,12,13,14,34,44,49,52,53 evaluated). A meta-analysis of this comparison was done (Fig 2, page 312.)
Quality Assessment of Studies
Overall, evaluation of the quality of the studies was
very difficult due to the failure of many reports to
provide sufficient information allowing for accurate
assessment. Eleven of the 32 studies reported masked
examiners and 5 studies clearly utilized sequentially
enrolled subjects (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).
Only randomized studies were included for this analysis. Methods of randomization for these studies varied
from no mention of methods of randomization (but were
Table 1.
Reference
Defect Type
Intervention
N
Subjects
N
Defects
Examiner
Blinded?
Sequential
Cases
Test
Controls
Miller I-III
15
30
CTG/double papillae
None
Miller I-II
30
30
CTG/CPF + TET
CTG/CPF + CA
32
64
FGG
None
Miller I-II
10
20
CGT/envelope
FGG (thick)
11
22
CPF/TET; no
fibrin glue
Trombelli
et al.70
1996
Miller I-II
70
70
CTG/CPF
FGG
Miller I-II
31
62
CTG-envelope
CTG/CPF
10
20
Miller I-II
36
36
Miller I >2 m
11
22
CPF + tension
CPF; no tension
Miller I-II
30
30
CTG/CPF
CA; no EPI collar
No CA + EPI collar
CTG/CPF
* Only RCTs are included in this review; therefore, in accordance with previously reported classifications, all studies are ranked 1 (highest).144
Yes (Y) or no or unsure (N).
Abbreviations: CA = citric acid; CPF = coronally positioned flap; CTG = connective tissue graft; EPI = epithelial; FGG = free gingival graft; TET = tetracycline.
306
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 307
Ann Periodontol
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 308
Table 2.
GTR Procedures*
Reference
308
Defect Type
N Subjects
N Defects
Examiner
Masked?
Sequential Cases?
Miller I, II; 2 mm
12
24
Miller I, II; 3 mm
20
40
Miller I; 2 mm
14
28
Romagna-Genon13 2001
Miller I, II
21
42
Miller I, II; 3 mm
12
24
Miller I, II; 4 mm
Miller I, II; 3 mm
50
50
MIller I, II
15
30
Miller I, II; 5 mm
54
54
Miller I, II
12
24
Miller I, II; 4 mm
16
12
24
3 mm
50
50
Miller I, II; 3 mm
16
32
Miller I, II; 3 mm
14
17
Miller I, II
12
14
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 309
Ann Periodontol
Table 2. (continued)
GTR Procedures*
Mean Results
Interventions
Test
Controls
GTR/Bioab (PLA)
Study
Root
Duration Coverage
(months)
mm
2.1
2.2
0
0.3
0.7
0
2.7
2.6
56
69
25
50
1.3
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.4
2.89
2.89
70
76
29
29
2.88
2.73
0
0.22
2.8
3.3
75
85
3.31
3.09
0.61
0.11
12
3.38
90
50
3.29
0.08
2.85
74
33
2.19
0.67
2.25
12
2.5
3.13
74
86
3.75
3.38
1.25
0.25
0.12
5.75
18
4.12
3.62
73
71
5.12
3.56
1
0.06
0.56
5.32
12
3.1
87
47
0.1
1.5
3.1
87
47
3.1
0.1
2.5
12
4.9
4.5
5.3
86
81
94
39
28
66
4.9
4.7
4.7
0.02
0.11
0.47
0.7
0.6
3.1
1.6
2.5
48
81
8
50
1.7
2.3
0.1
0.2
.8
1.8
67
13
3.6
0.6
1.1
2.6
60
13
2.6
0.1
0.9
2.63
84
1.41
1.5
3.96
96
0.84
3.5
48
4.2
3.8
73
72
5
3.9
0.8
0.05
1.8
5.2
2.5
2.8
73
84
2.8
2.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.1
2.75
82
0.88
90
0.88
3.36
2.7
91
81
GTR/Bioab (PLA)
GTR/Non-res (ePTFE)
FGG
GTR/Non-res (ePTFE)
FGG + CPF (2-step)
GTR/Non-res
(TR-ePTFE) + TET
CTG/envelope + TET
GTR/Bioab (Por coll)
GTR/Non-res (ePTFE)
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (PLA/PGA)
CTG/CPF
GTR/Non-res (ePTFE) +
TET/FN/FBN
GTR/Non-res (ePTFE)
GTR/Bioab (coll) +
DFDBA
18
CTG/CPF
GTR/non-res (ePTFE)
FGG + CPF (2-step)
GTR/Bioab (coll)
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (PLA) +
DFDBA
GTR/Bioab (PLA)
CPF + EMD
6
CPF
KT
58
83
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (PLA) +
PLA910 + DFDBA
PD
81
96
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (Por coll)
CAL
2
2.4
100%
6
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (PLA)
Root
Coverage
%
44
44
64
44
3.57
2.79
0.21
0.07
0.43
2.03
0.22
0.07
(continued)
309
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 310
Table 2. (continued)
GTR Procedures*
Defect Type
N Subjects
N Defects
Examiner
Masked?
Sequential Cases?
Miller I, II; 4 mm
12
24
20
20
Reference
* Only RCTs are included in this review; therefore, in accordance with previously reported classifications, all studies are ranked 1 (highest).144
Yes (Y) or no or unsure (N).
Abbreviations: Biob = bioabsorbable membrane; Coll = collagen; CPF = coronally positioned flap; CTG = connective tissue graft; DFDBA = demineralized
freeze-dried bone allograft; DPF = double pedicle flap; EMD = enamel matrix derivative; ePTFE = expanded polytetrafluoroetheylene; FGG = free gingival graft;
FBN = fibronectin; FN = fibrin; Non-res = non-resorbable membrane; PLA = polylactic acid; PLA/PGA = polylactic/polygycolic acid- PLA 910 = polyglactin
910- Por coll = porcine collagen; TET = tetracycline; TR = titanium-reinforced.
Table 3.
Defect
Type
Reference
Novaes et al.9 2001
Miller I, II
N
Subjects
N
Defects
Examiner
Masked?
Sequential
Cases?
30
Interventions
Test
Controls
Allogeneic graft
CTG
Aichelmann-Reidy
2001
et al.14
Miller I, II
2 mm
22
44
Allogeneic graft
CTG against tooth
Henderson
et al.18
2001
Miller I, II
3 mm
10
20
Allogeneic graft +
CPF/basement
membrane
against tooth
* Only RCTs are included in this review; therefore, in accordance with previously reported classifications, all studies are ranked 1 (highest).144
Yes (Y) or no or unsure (N).
Abbreviations: CPF = coronally positioned flap; CT = connective tissue; CTG = connective tissue graft.
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 311
Ann Periodontol
Table 2. (continued)
GTR Procedures*
Mean Results:
Interventions
Test
Controls
Study
Duration
(months)
Root
Coverage
mm
Root
Coverage
%
3.9
4
12
GTR/Bioab
ePTFE
GTR/Bioab (PLA)
DPF
GRT/Bioab (PLA) +
CPF
Table 3. (continued)
12
Root Coverage
mm
100%
CAL
PD
KT
2.1
1.84
65
62
33
40
0.81
0.92
0.13
0.09
0.63
1.26
1.7
66
1.5
0.2
1.2
2.2
74
1.6
0.6
1.6
3.95
95
70
4.15
0.1
0.8
4.2
95
80
3.65
0.8
100%
CAL
PD
KT
82
83
42
42
4.3
4.4
0.4
0.4
0
0.2
3.4
74
3.1
74
0.3
2.0
2.5
63
2.8
63
0.3
0.9
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:34 PM
Page 312
Figure 2.
Comprehensive meta-analysis of recession comparing autogenous connective tissue grafting with GTR procedures.
Abbreviations: Coll = collagen; ePTFE = expanded polytetrafluoroethylene; PLA = polylactic acid; PLA/PGA = polylactic/polyglycolic acid; Por coll = porcine
collagen.
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 313
Ann Periodontol
Table 4.
Test
Control
Romagna-Genon13
2001
GTR/Bioab
(Por coll)
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab
(coll) + DFDBA
CTG/CPF
GTR/Bioab (coll)
CTG/CPF
Roccuzzo et al.72
1996
GTR/Bioab
ePTFE
Allogeneic
CTG
Both patient and clinician evaluations: significantly greater frequency of excellent appearance scores with allogeneic graft
GTR/non-res
(ePTFE)
FGG + CPF
(2 step)
Bouchard et al.78
1994
CTG/CPF
No CA + EPI
collar
CTG/CPF
Results
Abbreviations: Bioab = bioabsorbable membrane; Coll = collagen; CPF = coronally positioned flap; CTG = connective tissue graft; DFDBA = demineralized
freeze-dried bone allograft; EPI = epithelial; ePTFE = expanded polytetrafluoroetheylene; FGG = free gingival graft; Non-res = non-resorbable membrane.
Figure 3.
Comprehensive meta-analysis of gains in keratinized tissue comparing autogenous connective tissue grafting with GTR procedures.
Abbreviations: Coll = collagen; ePTFE = expanded polytetrafluoroethylene; PLA = polylactic acid; PLA/PGA = polylactic/polyglycolic acid; Por coll =
porcine collagen.
313
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 314
nective tissue grafts in conjunction with coronally positioned flap procedures.145 This study showed that there
was no difference in the amounts of root coverage
obtained between treatment approaches. In addition,
there was less keratinized tissue resulting from this nonbarrier GTR procedure, consistent with our meta-analysis
for GTR procedures using barrier techniques compared
with connective tissue grafting procedures.
In summary, the overall goal of this study to assess
both clinical and patient-oriented outcomes using a prospectively designed systematic analysis was only partially achieved. Wide variations in results obtained and
in techniques utilized impacted on our ability to accomplish this goal. However, this in itself may be a significant finding regarding our current state of knowledge
and the high level of difficulty in effectively synthesizing
reports into clinical decisions. Hopefully, analyses of the
literature such as this will provide guidance for future
studies directed at the evidence-based assessment of
therapy.
REVIEWERS CONCLUSIONS
1. The systematic review of the data demonstrates
there are several surgical procedures that successfully
cover exposed root surfaces. There is evidence that
these surgical procedures result in improved patientoriented outcomes including decreased root sensitivity and enhanced soft tissue esthetics.
2. Meta-analysis identified statistically significant
advantages for autogenous connective tissue grafts
when compared with GTR using bioabsorbable barriers in terms of root coverage and width of keratinized
tissue.
3. A limited number of recent randomized controlled
studies support the efficacy of coronally positioned
flaps with allogeneic soft tissue grafts for root coverage.
4. The studies identified in this systematic review
concerning patient-oriented outcomes lacked standardization of measures, precluding quantitative analysis.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PRACTICE
AND RESEARCH
1. Future studies designed primarily to investigate
patient-oriented outcomes such as esthetics, hypersensitivity, morbidities, and overall satisfaction are needed.
2. Most of the literature dealing with root coverage
procedures consists of case series and non-randomized
studies. Future well-designed investigations are needed
to further clarify the relative efficacy of different treatment options.
3. Based on the number of studies using autogenous
connective tissue grafts in conjunction with coronally
positioned flap surgery, it is surprising there are no
comparative randomized controlled clinical trials for
this treatment and coronally positioned flap surgery
alone. Future studies are needed to assess the effi-
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 315
Ann Periodontol
18.
19.
REFERENCES
1. Wennstrm JL. Mucogingival therapy. Ann Periodontol
1996;1:671-701.
2. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat
Methods Med Res 1993;2(2):121-145.
3. Katerndahl DA, Cohen PA. Quantitatively reviewing the
literature: The application of meta-analysis. Fam Pract
Res J 1987;6(3):123-129.
4. Heges L, Olkin I. Statistical Methods of Meta-Analysis.
Orlando: Academic Press; 1985.
5. Hgewald S, Spahr A, Rompola E, Haller B, Heijl L,
Bernimoulin J-P. Comparative study of Emdogain and
coronally advanced flap technique in the treatment of
human gingival recessions. A prospective controlled
clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:35-41.
6. Mller H-P, Stahl M, Eger T. Failure of root coverage of
shallow gingival recessions employing GTR and a bioresorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
2001;21:171-181.
7. Tinti C, Manfrini F, Parma-Benfenati S. A bioresorbable
barrier in the treatment of gingival recession: Description of a new resorbable dome device. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2001;21:31-39.
8. Hirsch A, Attal U, Chai E, Goultschin J, Boyan BD,
Schwartz Z. Root coverage and pocket reduction as
combined surgical procedures. J Periodontol 2001;72:
1572-1579.
9. Novaes AB Jr, Grisi DC, Molina GO, Souza SLS, Taba M
Jr, Grisi MFM. Comparative 6-month clinical study of a
subepithelial connective tissue graft and acellular dermal matrix graft for the treatment of gingival recession.
J Periodontol 2001;72:1477-1484.
10. Cordioli G, Mortarino C, Chierico A, Grusovin MG,
Majzoub Z. Comparison of 2 techniques of subepithelial
connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions. J Periodontol 2001;72:1470-1476.
11. Nelson SW. Subperiosteal and intraosseous connective
tissue grafts for pocket reduction: A 9- to 13-year retrospective case series report. J Periodontol 2001;72:
1424-1435.
12. Wang H-L, Bunyaratavej P, Labadie M, Shyr Y, MacNeil RL.
Comparison of 2 clinical techniques for treatment of
gingival recession. J Periodontol 2001;72:1301-1311.
13. Romagna-Genon C. Comparative clinical study of guided
tissue regeneration with a bioabsorbable bilayer collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft.
J Periodontol 2001;72:1258-1264.
14. Aichelmann-Reidy ME, Yukna RA, Evans GH, Nasr HF,
Mayer ET. Clinical evaluation of acellular allograft dermis for the treatment of human gingival recession. J Periodontol 2001;72:998-1005.
15. Harris RJ. Clinical evaluation of 3 techniques to augment
keratinized tissue without root coverage. J Periodontol
2001;72:932-938.
16. Harris RJ. Histologic evaluation of root coverage obtained
with GTR in humans: A case report. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2001;21:240-251.
17. Saletta D, Pini Prato G. Pagliaro U. Baldi C. Mauri M.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Nieri M. Coronally advanced flap procedure: Is the interdental papilla a prognostic factor for root coverage?
J Periodontol 2001;72:760-766.
Henderson RD, Greenwell H, Drisko C, et al. Predictable
multiple site root coverage using an acellular dermal
matrix allograft. J Periodontol 2001;72:571-582.
Jorgic-Srdjak K, Bosnjak A, Plancak D, Maricevic T.
Ten-year evaluation of conservative and surgical treatment of gingival recession. A case series study. Coll
Antropol 2000;24:495-500.
Ito K, Oshio K, Shiomi N, Murai S. A preliminary comparative study of the guided tissue regeneration and free
gingival graft procedures for adjacent facial root coverage. Quintessence Int 2000;31:319-326.
Dodge JR, Greenwell H, Drisko C, Wittwer JW, Yancey J,
Rebitski G. Improved bone regeneration and root coverage using a resorbable membrane with physically
assisted cell migration and DFDBA. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 2000;20:399-411.
Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained
with an acellular dermal matrix versus a connective tissue
graft: Results of 107 recession defects in 50 consecutively
treated patients. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
2000;20:51-59.
Maurer S, Hayes C, Leone C. Width of keratinized tissue
after gingivoplasty of healed subepithelial connective
tissue grafts. J Periodontol 2000;71:1729-1736.
Modica F, Del Pizzo M, Roccuzzo M, Romagnoli R.
Coronally advanced flap for the treatment of buccal gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative. A split-mouth study. J Periodontol 2000;71:
1693-1698.
Duval BT, Maynard JG, Gunsolley JC, Waldrop TC.
Treatment of human mucogingival defects utilizing a
bioabsorbable membrane with and without a demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft. J Periodontol 2000;71:
1687-1692.
Boltchi FE. Allen EP. Hallmon WW. The use of a bioabsorbable barrier for regenerative management of marginal tissue recession. I. Report of 100 consecutively
treated teeth. J Periodontol 2000;71:1641-1653.
Zucchelli G, De Sanctis M. Treatment of multiple
recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands.
J Periodontol 2000;71:1506-1514.
Rosetti EP, Marcantonio RAC, Rossa C Jr, Chaves ES,
Goissis G, Marcantonio E Jr. Treatment of gingival
recession: Comparative study between subepithelial
connective tissue graft and guided tissue regeneration.
J Periodontol 2000;71:1441-1447.
Jepsen S, Heinz B, Kermanie MA, Jepsen K. Evaluation
of a new bioabsorbable barrier for recession therapy:
A feasibility study. J Periodontol 2000;71:1433-1440.
Greenwell H, Bissada NF, Henderson RD, Dodge JR.
The deceptive nature of root coverage results. J Periodontol 2000;71:1327-1337.
Wei P-C, Laurell L, Geivelis M, Lingen MW, Maddalozzo D.
Acellular dermal matrix allografts to achieve increased
attached gingiva. Part 1. A clinical study. J Periodontol
2000;71:1297-1305.
Amarante ES, Leknes KN, Skavland J, Lie T. Coronally
positioned flap procedures with or without a bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of human gingival
recession. J Periodontol 2000;71:989-998.
Caffesse RG, De La Rosa M, Garza M, Munne-Travers A,
Mondragon JC, Weltman R. Citric acid demineralization
and subepithelial connective tissue grafts. J Periodontol
2000;71:568-572.
315
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 316
J Periodontol 1998;69:975-981.
51. Mller H-P, Eger T, Schorb A. Gingival dimensions after
root coverage with free connective tissue grafts. J Clin
Periodontol 1998;25:424-430.
52. Jepsen K, Heinz B, Halben JH, Jepsen S. Treatment of
gingival recession with titanium reinforced barrier membranes versus connective tissue grafts. J Periodontol
1998;69:383-391.
53. Zucchelli G, Clauser C, De Sanctis M, Calandriello M.
Mucogingival versus guided tissue regeneration procedures in the treatment of deep recession type defects.
J Periodontol 1998;69:138-145.
54. Mendes DN, Novaes AB Jr, Novaes AB. Root coverage
of large localized gingival recession: A biometric study.
Braz Dent J 1997;8:113-120.
55. Ozcan G, Kurtis B, Balos K. Combined use of root conditioning, fibrin-fibronectin system and a collagen membrane to treat a localized gingival recession: A 10-case
report. J Marmara Univ Dent Fac 1997;2:588-598.
56. Trombelli L, Tatakis DN, Scabbia A, Zimmerman GJ.
Comparison of mucogingival changes following treatment with coronally positioned flap and guided tissue
regeneration procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative
Dent 1997;17:449-455.
57. Waterman CA. Guided tissue regeneration using a bioabsorbable membrane in the treatment of human buccal
recession. A re-entry study. J Periodontol 1997;68:
982-989.
58. Harris RJ. Creeping attachment associated with the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft.
J Periodontol 1997;68:890-899.
59. Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained with guided tissue regeneration utilizing a bioabsorbable membrane versus the connective tissue with
partial-thickness double pedicle graft. J Periodontol
1997;68:779-790.
60. Shieh A-T, Wang H-L, ONeal R, Glickman GN, MacNeil
RL. Development and clinical evaluation of a root coverage procedure using a collagen barrier membrane.
J Periodontol 1997;68:770-778.
61. Trombelli L, Scabbia A. Healing response of gingival
recession defects following guided tissue regeneration
procedures in smokers and non-smokers. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:529-533.
62. Bouchard P, Nilvus R, Etienne D. Clinical evaluation of
tetracycline HCl conditioning in the treatment of gingival recessions. A comparative study. J Periodontol
1997;68:262-269.
63. Paolantonio M, di Murro C, Cattabriga A, Cattabriga M.
Subpedicle connective tissue graft versus free gingival
graft in the coverage of exposed root surfaces. A 5-year
clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:51-56.
64. Ricci G, Silvestri M, Rasperini G, Cattaneo V. Root
coverage: A clinical/statistical comparison between
subpedicle connective tissue graft and laterally positioned full thickness flaps. J Esthetic Dent 1996;8:
66-73.
65. Ricci G, Silvestri M, Tinti C, Rasperini G. A clinical/
statistical comparison between the subpedicle connective
tissue graft method and the guided tissue regeneration
technique in root coverage. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:539-545.
66. De Sanctis M, Zucchelli G. Guided tissue regeneration
with a resorbable barrier membrane (Vicryl) for the management of buccal recession: A case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:435-441.
67. Wang H-L, MacNeil RL, Shieh A-T, ONeal R. Utilization
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 317
Ann Periodontol
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
of a resorbable collagen membrane in repairing gingival recession defects. Pract Periodont Aesthetic Dent
1996;8:441-448.
Pini Prato G, Clauser C, Cortellini P. Tinti C. Vincenzi G.
Pagliaro U. Guided tissue regeneration versus mucogingival surgery in the treatment of human buccal recessions. A 4-year follow-up study. J Periodontol 1996;67:
1216-1223.
Wennstrm JL, Zucchelli G. Increased gingival dimensions. A significant factor for successful outcome of root
coverage procedures? A 2-year prospective clinical
study. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:770-777.
Trombelli L, Scabbia A, Wikesj UME, Calura G. Fibrin
glue application in conjunction with tetracycline root
conditioning and coronally positioned flap procedure in
the treatment of human gingival recession defects. J Clin
Periodontol 1996;23:861-867.
Rachlin G, Koubi G, Dejou J, Franquin JC. The use of
a resorbable membrane in mucogingival surgery. Case
series. J Periodontol 1996;67:621-626.
Roccuzzo M, Lungo M, Corrente G, Gandolfo S. Comparative study of a bioresorbable and a non-resorbable
membrane in the treatment of human buccal gingival
recessions. J Periodontol 1996;67:7-14.
Pini Prato G, Clauser C, Magnani C, Cortellini P.
Resorbable membranes in the treatment of human buccal recession: A nine-case report. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 1995;15:258-267.
Trombelli L, Schincaglia GP, Zangari F, Griselli A,
Scabbia A, Calura G. Effects of tetracycline HCl conditioning and fibrin-fibronectin system application in the
treatment of buccal gingival recession with guided tissue regeneration. J Periodontol 1995;66:313-320.
Trombelli L, Schincaglia GP, Scapoli C, Calura G. Healing
response of human buccal gingival recessions treated
with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes. A
retrospective report. J Periodontol 1995;66:14-22.
Borghetti A, Louise F. Controlled clinical evaluation of
the subpedicle connective tissue graft for the coverage
of gingival recession. J Periodontol 1994;65:1107-1112.
Tinti C, Vincenzi GP. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene
titanium-reinforced membranes for regeneration of
mucogingival recession defects. A 12-case report. J Periodontol 1994;65:1088-1094.
Bouchard P, Etienne D, Ouhayoun J-P, Nilvus R. Subepithelial connective tissue grafts in the treatment of gingival recessions. A comparative study of 2 procedures.
J Periodontol 1994;65:929-936.
Allen AL. Use of the supraperiosteal envelope in soft
tissue grafting for root coverage. II. Clinical results. Int
J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994;14:302-315.
Harris RJ, Harris AW. The coronally positioned pedicle
graft with inlaid margins: A predictable method of obtaining root coverage of shallow defects. Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 1994;14:229-241.
Trombelli L, Schincaglia G, Checchi L, Calura G. Combined guided tissue regeneration, root conditioning, and
fibrin-fibronectin system application in the treatment of
gingival recession. A 15-case report. J Periodontol
1994;65:796-803.
Stakiw JE. Root coverage using a lateral pedicle gingival
flapa 22 year case study. J Can Dent Assoc 1994;60:
891-892.
Harris RJ. The connective tissue with partial thickness
double pedicle graft: The results of 100 consecutivelytreated defects. J Periodontol 1994;65:448-461.
Landsberg CJ, Smukler H, Tal H. The use of gingival
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 318
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
318
121. Dorfman HS, Kennedy JE, Bird WC. Longitudinal evaluation of free autogenous gingival grafts. A four year
report. J Periodontol 1982;53:349-352.
122. Langer B, Calagna LJ. The subepithelial connective
tissue graft. A new approach to the enhancement of
anterior cosmetics. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent
1982;2(2):22-33.
123. Espinel MC, Caffesse RG. Comparison of the results
obtained with the laterally positioned pedicle sliding
flap-revised technique and the lateral sliding flap with
a free gingival graft technique in the treatment of localized gingival recessions. Int J Periodontics Restorative
Dent 1981;1(6):31-37.
124. Bartolucci EG. A clinical evaluation of freeze-dried
homologous dura mater as a periodontal free graft
material. Study in humans. J Periodontol 1981;52:
354-361.
125. Mrmann W, Schaer F, Firestone AR. The relationship
between success of free gingival grafts and transplant
thickness. Revascularization and shrinkageA one year
clinical study. J Periodontol 1981;52:74-80.
126. Tenenbaum H, Klewansky P, Roth JJ. Clinical evaluation of gingival recession treated by coronally repositioned flap technique. J Periodontol 1980;51:686-690.
127. Matter J. Creeping attachment of free gingival grafts.
A five-year follow-up study. J Periodontol 1980;51:
681-685.
128. Dorfman HS, Kennedy JE, Bird WC. Longitudinal evaluation of free autogenous gingival grafts. J Clin Periodontol 1980;7:316-324.
129. Liu WJ-L, Solt CW. A surgical procedure for the treatment of localized gingival recession in conjunction with
root surface citric acid conditioning. J Periodontol 1980;
51:505-509.
130. Hangorsky U, Bissada NF. Clinical assessment of free
gingival graft effectiveness on the maintenance of periodontal health. J Periodontol 1980;51:274-278.
131. Caffesse RG, Guinard EA. Treatment of localized gingival recessions. Part IV. Results after three years. J Periodontol 1980;51:167-170.
132. Matter J. Free gingival graft and coronally repositioned
flap. A 2-year follow-up report. J Clin Periodontol
1979;6:437-442.
133. Caffesse RG, Guinard EA. Treatment of localized
gingival recessions. Part II. Coronally repositioned flap
with a free gingival graft. J Periodontol 1978;49:
357-361.
134. Guinard EA, Caffesse RG. Treatment of localized gingival recessions. Part I. Lateral sliding flap. J Periodontol
1978;49:351-356.
135. James WC, McFall WT Jr. Placement of free gingival
grafts on denuded alveolar bone. Part I: Clinical evaluations. J Periodontol 1978;49:283-290.
136. Maynard JG Jr. Coronal positioning of a previously
placed autogenous gingival graft. J Periodontol 1977;
48:151-155.
137. Irwin RK. Combined use of the gingival graft and
rotated pedicle procedures: Case reports. J Periodontol 1977;48:38-40.
138. Matter J, Cimasoni G. Creeping attachment after free
gingival grafts. J Periodontol 1976;47:574-579.
139. Bernimoulin J-P, Lscher B, Mhlemann HR. Coronally
repositioned periodontal flap. Clinical evaluation after
one year. J Clin Periodontol 1975;2:1-13.
140. Vandersall DC. Management of gingival recession and
a surgical dehiscence with a soft tissue autograft: 4 year
observation. J Periodontol 1974;45:274-278.
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 319
Ann Periodontol
APPENDIX A
CONSENSUS REPORT
Members of the Section read and studied the review
titled Surgical Therapies for the Treatment of Gingival
Recession. A Systematic Review, by Thomas Oates,
Melanie Robinson, and John C. Gunsolley. The focused
PICO question addressed by this evidence-based systematic review is: What is the effect of surgical therapy
for root coverage in patients with gingival recession
compared with other treatment modalities or baseline
values?
INTRODUCTION
The Section participants declared there were no conflicts of interest regarding the topics to be discussed. The
generated discussions were centered around the evidence-based systematic review as well as 2 previously
published systematic reviews. The Sections extensive
personal clinical experience in the area of periodontal
plastic surgery brought insight, clarity, and clinical relevance to the deliberations. This allowed the participants to integrate individual clinical experience with the
best available evidence.
The deliberations were focused on the PICO question and the data provided by the systematic review.
Decisions were reached after consideration of the
strength of evidence for each of the 5 Consensus
Report questions.
It is important for readers to understand that treatment decisions based on recommendations from this
Section must take into account the expertise of the
clinician, type of lesion presented, and patient treatment needs and desires.
It was not within the scope of the systematic review
to assess elements important in case selection (e.g.,
patient factors, defect morphology, and site characteristics) and the critical aspects of the execution of these
procedures (e.g., flap design and suturing techniques)
in accomplishing optimal root surface coverage. However, these factors may influence specific procedure
selection, outcomes, or decision to treat.
1. Does the Section agree that the evidence-based
systematic review is complete and accurate?
The data review was complete and accurate within the
context of the question posed.
2. Has any new information been generated
or discovered since the evidence-based search
cut-off date?
New information including 2 systematic reviews and
3 RCTs directly relevant to the PICO question was evaluated by the Section.1-5 Two studies compared coronally positioned flaps with either soft tissue allografts
or autogenous connective tissue grafts.3,4 Another
study compared coronally positioned flaps with either
enamel matrix derivative or autogenous connective
tissue grafts.5 The results of these studies were consistent with those included in the systematic review.
3. Does the Section agree with the interpretations
and conclusions of the reviewers?
After assessment of the original evidence, the Section
agrees with the following conclusions:
The systematic review of the data demonstrates
there are several surgical procedures that successfully
cover exposed root surfaces. There is evidence that
these surgical procedures result in improved patientoriented outcomes including decreased root sensitivity
and enhanced soft tissue esthetics.
The studies identified in this systematic review
concerning patient-oriented outcomes lacked standardization of measures, precluding quantitative analysis.
Future studies designed primarily to investigate
patient-oriented outcomes such as esthetics, hypersensitivity, morbidities, and overall satisfaction are needed.
Meta-analysis identified statistically significant
advantages for autogenous connective tissue grafts when
compared with GTR using bioabsorbable barriers in
terms of root coverage and width of keratinized tissue.
A limited number of recent randomized controlled
studies support the efficacy of coronally positioned
flaps with allogeneic soft tissue grafts for root coverage.
Based on the number of efficacy studies using
autogenous connective tissue grafts in conjunction with
coronally positioned flap surgery, it is surprising that
there are no comparative randomized controlled trials
for this treatment and coronally positioned flap surgery
alone. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of coronally positioned flap procedures in the
presence or absence of connective tissue grafting.
319
8012.qxd
12/30/03
3:35 PM
Page 320
320
SECTION MEMBERS
James T. Mellonig,
Pierpaolo S. Cortellini
Group Leader
J. Gary Maynard
Maurizio Tonetti, Chair
Michael MacNeil
Donald S. Clem, III,
Michael K. McGuire
Secretary
Kevin G. Murphy
Thomas Oates, Reviewer
Robert G. Schallhorn
Edward P. Allen
Henry H. Takei
Kenneth W. Bueltmann
Raymond A. Yukna