Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
BACKGROUND Dental root coverage, crucial in managing gingival recessions, traditionally utilizes subepithelial connective tissue grafts. However, this approach has limitations such as donor site morbidity and graft availability. Recent studies have introduced platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as an alternative, leveraging its regenerative potential and growth factors. Despite the promise, comparative assessments between PRF and conventional grafts remain limited. This research probes whether PRF, when used beneath a modified Ruben's mixed flap, could provide comparable or superior dental root coverage than a subepithelial connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 30 patients exhibiting Miller's class I and II recession in this comparative case series. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a connective tissue graft (15 patients) or a PRF matrix (15 patients), both covered by a modified Ruben's mixed flap. RESULTS Clinical parameters, including full mouth plaque scores, bleeding scores, probing sulcus depth, clinical attachment level, gingival position assessment, width, and thickness of attached gingiva, were assessed in both the control and test groups at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months post-surgery. Significant differences were observed at all intervals.At the 12-month mark, the control group (connective tissue graft) achieved 91% complete root coverage, while the test group (PRF matrix) achieved 86%. However, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS The study outcomes suggest comparable gains in root coverage and attached gingiva between the connective tissue graft and PRF matrix groups. Thus, the results support our hypothesis that a subepithelial PRF matrix can serve as a viable alternative to a subepithelial connective tissue graft for treating dental root coverage.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10559832 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.941473 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!