Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 767
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 239-244

A comparative evaluation of bioresorbable type I collagen membrane with and without fibrin fibronectin sealing system in the treatment of gingival recession: A clinical study


Department of Periodontics, GITAM Dental College and Hospital, Gandhinagar Campus, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Aparajitha Sunkavalli
Department of Periodontics, GITAM Dental College and Hospital, Gandhinagar Campus, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam - 530 045, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2277-8632.105112

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: The purpose of the study was to clinically evaluate and compare the efficacy of type I collagen membrane (BIOMEND REGULAR® ) 1 with and without fibrin fibronectin sealing system (TISSEEL® ) 2 in the treatment of localized gingival recession. Materials and Methods: The study population consisted of 14 patients with a total of 28 gingival recession defects. The selected gingival recession sites were randomly assigned as either experimental site A (BioMend Regular® ) or experimental site B (BioMend Regular® + Tisseel® ). The clinical parameters including plaque index, gingival index, recession depth, recession width, width of keratinized gingiva, probing depth and clinical attachment level were recorded at baseline and at six months and twelve months post-operatively. Results: Twelve months follow-up results showed significant improvements in all clinical parameters for both the treatment groups. The recession width and depth were reduced in both the groups - BioMend Regular® and BioMend Regular® + Tisseel® , with mean root coverage of 31.79% and 35.64%, respectively. Furthermore, the width of keratinized gingiva was increased by 2.71 mm and 3.14 mm for experimental site A and experimental site B respectively when baseline values were compared with twelve month post-operative data. On intergroup comparison, the mean difference in different clinical parameters was statistically not significan. Interpretation and Conclusion: Both groups showed the potential of achieving root coverage; however, on comparison between the two groups, the results obtained of BioMend Regular® with Tisseel® group were slightly better, although statistically not significant.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3437    
    Printed106    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded324    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal