Banca de DEFESA: SAMUEL BATISTA BORGES

Uma banca de DEFESA de DOUTORADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : SAMUEL BATISTA BORGES
DATE: 11/11/2022
TIME: 14:00
LOCAL: Remoto
TITLE:

COMPARISON OF TWO SURGICAL TECHNIQUES FOR ROOT COVERAGE OF SINGLE GINGIVAL RECESSION

KEY WORDS:

Gingival recession. Tooth root. Connective tissue. Surgical flaps. Clinical trial.

PAGES: 97
BIG AREA: Ciências da Saúde
AREA: Odontologia
SUBÁREA: Periodontia
SUMMARY:

The increasing demands of patients for the treatment of gingival recessions bring up clinically significant therapeutic issues, requiring professionals to constantly improve in less invasive and more predictable surgical techniques. AIM: To compare two root coverage techniques to treat single, unilateral, type 1 gingival recessions. METHOD: This parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trial evaluated individuals with single, unilateral, type 1 gingival recessions 1 (RT1), who underwent root coverage procedure with subepithelial connective tissue graft associated to a coronally advanced flap (control group) or a tunnel technique (test group). The main parameters evaluated were probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), height of keratinized tissue (KTH), gingival thickness (GT), percentage of root coverage (RC) and gingival phenotype (GP), in addition to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), such as postoperative pain, cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH), esthetics, degree of satisfaction and quality of life, intra and intergroup, throughout 06 months follow-up. Data were statistically analyzed using paired Student  t-test, t-test for independent samples, Chi-square, McNemar, Split-Plot Analysis of Variance with post hoc t-test (α = 5%). RESULTS: 46 subjects completed this study (control: 23; test: 23). Surgery time was longer for the test group (control: 40min ± 5.6; test: 51min ± 5.9; p = 0.041). Statistically significant reductions for GR and significant gain for CAL, KTH and GT were observed in the intragroup analysis, in both treatment groups, however, without differences between techniques. The CR increased significantly, but no intergroup differences were observed (control: 89.2%; test: 86.5%; p = 0.069). Intragroup analysis revealed a change in GP (control: 95.65%; test: 91.3%; p < 0.001). Both treatment protocols reduced postoperative pain and CDH and improved esthetics, satisfaction and quality of life (p < 0.001), with no differences between the techniques over time. CONCLUSION: Both treatments showed similar clinical efficacy in terms of root coverage and improvement in PROMs.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Presidente - 1660087 - BRUNO CESAR DE VASCONCELOS GURGEL
Interna - 2085732 - ANA RAFAELA LUZ DE AQUINO MARTINS
Externo à Instituição - DANIELA DA SILVA FEITOSA - UFPE
Externa à Instituição - KARYNA DE MELO MENEZES - UEPB
Externo à Instituição - RENATO VASCONCELOS ALVES - UPE