nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.03.2024 | Review

Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Matheus Souza Campos Costa, Cléber Davi Del Rei Daltro Rosa, Victor Augusto Alves Bento, Sandy Maria da Silva Costa, Joel Ferreira Santiago Jr, Eduardo Piza Pellizzer, Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft (AXDM) compared to connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating multiple gingival recessions.

Materials and methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared AXDM and CTG. The selected studies were subjected to bias risk assessment, data extraction, and meta-analyses. Parameters such as gingival recession height, width, mean percentage of root coverage, and complete root coverage were analyzed.

Results

Seven RCTs involving 146 patients were included. The meta-analyses indicated that CTG was statistically superior to AXDM in reducing gingival recession height at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.104 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.180-0.028, p = 0.008) and width at the final follow-up (mean difference: -0.285 mm, 95% CI: -0.541-0.030, p = 0.029). CTG also demonstrated a significantly higher mean percentage of root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (difference in means: -2.761 mm, 95% CI: -4.932-0.590, p = 0.013) and a higher percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (odds Ratio [OR]: 0.598, 95% CI: 0.4-0.892, p = 0.012) compared to AXDM. However, there was no significant difference in the number of teeth with complete root coverage between CTG and AXDM (OR: 1.610, 95% CI: 0.983–2.636, p = 0.058) and aesthetic outcomes (mean difference: 0.148, 95% CI: -0.277-0.573, p = 0.494).

Conclusions

CTG is more effective than AXDM in treating multiple gingival recessions. This is evidenced by significant reductions in gingival recession height and width, a higher mean percentage of root coverage, and a greater percentage of complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up.

Clinical relevance

In some clinical situations an alternative to CTG is required for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions. AXDM, despite presenting clinical outcomes that are not as satisfactory as CTG, can be used for this purpose.

Jepsen S, Caton JG, Albandar JM et al (2018) Periodontal manifestations of systemic diseases and developmental and acquired conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 3 of the 2017 World workshop on the classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Clin Periodontol 45:S219–S229CrossRefPubMed

Gorman WJ (1967) Prevalence and etiology of gingival recession. J Periodontol 38:316–322CrossRefPubMed

Murray JJ (1973) Gingival recession in tooth types in high fluoride and low fluoride areas. J Periodontal Res 8:243–251CrossRefPubMed

Albandar JM, Kingman A (1999) Gingival recession, gingival bleeding, and dental calculus in adults 30 years of age and older in the United States, 1988-1994. J Periodontol 70:30–43CrossRefPubMed

Gürlek Ö, Gümüş P, Nizam N, Buduneli N (2020) Coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. J Esthetic Restor Dentistry 32:380–388CrossRef

Litonjua LA, Andreana S, Bush PJ, Cohen RE (2003) Toothbrushing and gingival recession. Int Dent J 53:67–72CrossRefPubMed

Miller PD Jr (1985) A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 5:9

Cairo F, Nieri M, Cincinelli S et al (2011) The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol 38:661–666CrossRefPubMed

Raetzke PB (1985) Covering localized areas of root exposure employing the envelope technique. J Periodontol 56:397–402. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1985.56.7.397CrossRefPubMed

10.

Langer B, Langer L (1985) Subepithelial connective tissue graft technique for root coverage. J Periodontol 56:715–720CrossRefPubMed

11.

Allen AL (1994) Use of the supraperiosteal envelope in soft tissue grafting for root coverage. I. Rationale and technique. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 14

12.

Bruno JF (1994) Connective tissue graft technique assuring wide root coverage. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 14

13.

Burkhardt R, Lang NP (2005) Coverage of localized gingival recessions: comparison of micro-and macrosurgical techniques. J Clin Periodontol 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00660.x

14.

Leknes KN, Amarante ES, Price DE et al (2005) Coronally positioned flap procedures with or without a biodegradable membrane in the treatment of human gingival recession. A 6-year follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00706.x

15.

De Sanctis M, Zucchelli G (2007) Coronally advanced flap: a modified surgical approach for isolated recession-type defects: three-year results. J Clin Periodontol 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.01039.x

16.

Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE et al (2008) Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of miller class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent 36:659–671CrossRefPubMed

17.

Rakasevic DL, Milinkovic IZ, Jankovic SM et al (2020) The use of collagen porcine dermal matrix and connective tissue graft with modified coronally advanced tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent type I gingival recessions: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Esthetic Restor Dentistry 32:681–690CrossRef

18.

Pabst AM, Happe A, Callaway A et al (2014) In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontal Res 49:371–381CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rothamel D, Benner M, Fienitz T et al (2014) Biodegradation pattern and tissue integration of native and cross-linked porcine collagen soft tissue augmentation matrices–an experimental study in the rat. Head Face Med 10:1–9CrossRef

20.

Meza-Mauricio J, Cortez-Gianezzi J, Duarte PM et al (2021) Comparison between a xenogeneic dermal matrix and connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 25:6919–6929CrossRefPubMed

21.

Suzuki KT, de Jesus Hernandez Martinez C, Suemi MI et al (2020) Root coverage using coronally advanced flap with porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix or subepithelial connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 24:4077–4087CrossRefPubMed

22.

Maluta R, Monteiro MF, Peruzzo DC, Joly JC (2021) Root coverage of multiple gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap associated with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix or connective tissue graft: a 6-month split-mouth controlled and randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 25:5765–5773CrossRefPubMed

23.

Vincent-Bugnas S, Laurent J, Naman E et al (2021) Treatment of multiple gingival recessions with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix compared to connective tissue graft: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. J Periodontal Implant Sci 51:77CrossRefPubMed

24.

McGuire MK, Scheyer ET (2010) Xenogeneic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flap compared to connective tissue with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of dehiscence-type recession defects. J Periodontol 81:1108–1117CrossRefPubMed

25.

Cieślik-Wegemund M, Wierucka‐Młynarczyk B, Tanasiewicz M, Gilowski Ł (2016) Tunnel technique with collagen matrix compared with connective tissue graft for treatment of periodontal recession: a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 87:1436–1443CrossRefPubMed

26.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley

27.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10:1–11CrossRef

28.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5:1–10CrossRef

29.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366

30.

De Medeiros F, Kudo GAH, Leme BG et al (2018) Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47:480–491CrossRefPubMed

31.

Junior JFS, de Souza Batista VE, Verri FR et al (2016) Platform-switching implants and bone preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:332–345CrossRef

32.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2021) Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley

33.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64:383–394CrossRefPubMed

34.

Qin D, Hua F, Yue H et al (2022) The reporting and methodological quality of split-mouth trials in oral implantology: a methodological study. Clin Oral Implants Res

35.

Bertl K, Spineli LM, Mohandis K, Stavropoulos A (2021) Root coverage stability: a systematic overview of controlled clinical trials with at least 5 years of follow-up. Clin Exp Dent Res 7:692–710CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Thompson SG, Higgins JPT (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573CrossRefPubMed

37.

Röllke L, Schacher B, Wohlfeil M et al (2012) Regenerative therapy of infrabony defects with or without systemic doxycycline. A randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol 39:448–456CrossRefPubMed

38.

Sculean A, Blaes A, Arweiler N et al (2001) The effect of postsurgical antibiotics on the healing of intrabony defects following treatment with enamel matrix proteins. J Periodontol 72:190–195CrossRefPubMed

39.

Loos BG, Louwerse PHG, Van Winkelhoff AJ et al (2002) Use of barrier membranes and systemic antibiotics in the treatment of intraosseous defects. J Clin Periodontol 29:910–921CrossRefPubMed

40.

Siaili M, Chatzopoulou D, Gillam DG (2014) Preferences of UK-Based dentists when Undertaking Root Coverage and regenerative procedures: a pilot questionnaire study. Int J Dent 2014

41.

Gholami GA, Saberi A, Kadkhodazadeh M et al (2013) Comparison of the clinical outcomes of connective tissue and acellular dermal matrix in combination with double papillary flap for root coverage: a 6-month trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 10:506PubMed

42.

Barros RRM, Macedo GO, de Queiroz AC, Novaes AB Jr (2015) A modified surgical flap for root coverage in association with grafting materials. J Esthetic Restor Dentistry 27:84–91CrossRef

43.

Paolantonio M, Dolci M, Esposito P et al (2002) Subpedicle acellular dermal matrix graft and autogenous connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions: a comparative 1-year clinical study. J Periodontol 73:1299–1307CrossRefPubMed

44.

Chambrone L, Tatakis DN (2015) Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol 86:S8–S51CrossRefPubMed

45.

Chambrone L, Pannuti CM, Tu Y, Chambrone LA (2012) Evidence-based periodontal plastic surgery. II. An individual data meta‐analysis for evaluating factors in achieving complete root coverage. J Periodontol 83:477–490CrossRefPubMed

46.

Tonetti MS, Cortellini P, Pellegrini G et al (2018) Xenogenic collagen matrix or autologous connective tissue graft as adjunct to coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession: randomized trial assessing non-inferiority in root coverage and superiority in oral health‐related. J Clin Periodontol 45:78–88CrossRefPubMed

47.

Chambrone L, Botelho J, Machado V et al (2022) Does the subepithelial connective tissue graft in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap remain as the gold standard therapy for the treatment of single gingival recession defects? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Periodontol 93:1336–1352CrossRefPubMed

48.

Santamaria MP, Rossato A, Fernanda Ferreira Ferraz L et al (2023) Multiple gingival recessions associated with non-carious cervical lesions treated by partial restoration and modified coronally advanced flap with either connective tissue graft or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix: a randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.22-0516.

Titel: Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Matheus Souza Campos Costa
Cléber Davi Del Rei Daltro Rosa
Victor Augusto Alves Bento
Sandy Maria da Silva Costa
Joel Ferreira Santiago Jr
Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05560-2

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Efficacy of acellular xenogeneic dermal matrix graft in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: systematic review and meta-analysis