dc.contributorEducational Foundation of Barretos (UNIFEB)
dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:24:35Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T18:19:58Z
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:24:35Z
dc.date.available2022-10-05T18:19:58Z
dc.date.created2014-05-27T11:24:35Z
dc.date.issued2009-12-28
dc.identifierBrazilian Oral Research, v. 23, n. 3, p. 307-312, 2009.
dc.identifier1806-8324
dc.identifier1807-3107
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/71495
dc.identifier10.1590/S1806-83242009000300014
dc.identifierS1806-83242009000300014
dc.identifier2-s2.0-72449196993
dc.identifier2-s2.0-72449196993.pdf
dc.identifier3534044399884035
dc.identifier2628593693450121
dc.identifier6100859465871929
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3920680
dc.description.abstractIn a previous study, we evaluated the findings related to the use of resorbable collagen membranes in humans along with DFDBA (demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft). The aim of this subsequent study was to histometrically evaluate in dogs, the healing response of gingival recessions treated with collagen membrane + DFDBA (Guided Tissue Regeneration, GTR) compared to a coronally positioned flap (CPF). Two types of treatment were randomly carried out in a split-mouth study. Group 1 was considered as test (GTR: collagen membrane + DFDBA), whereas Group 2 stood for the control (only CPF). The dogs were given chemical bacterial plaque control with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate during a 90-day repair period. Afterwards, the animals were killed to obtain biopsies and histometric evaluation of the process of cementum and bone formation, epithelial migration and gingival level. A statistically significant difference was found between groups with a larger extension of neoformed cementum (GTR = 32.72%; CPF = 18.82%; p = 0.0004), new bone (GTR = 23.20%; CPF = 09.90%; p = 0.0401) and with a smaller area of residual gingival recession in the test group (GTR = 50.69%; CPF = 59.73%; p = 0.0055) compared to the control group. The only item assessed that showed no statistical difference was epithelial proliferation on the root surface, with means of 15.14% for the GTR group and 20.34% for the CPF group (p = 0.0890). Within the limits of this study we concluded that the treatment of gingival recession defects with GTR, associating collagen membrane with DFDBA, showed better outcomes in terms of a larger extension of neoformed cementum and bone, as well as in terms of a smaller proportion of residual recessions.
dc.languageeng
dc.relationBrazilian Oral Research
dc.relation1.223
dc.rightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectComparative
dc.subjectGingival recession
dc.subjectGuided tissue regeneration
dc.subjectHistology
dc.subjectReconstructive surgical procedures
dc.subjectcollagen
dc.subjectanimal
dc.subjectartificial membrane
dc.subjectbone transplantation
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjectdog
dc.subjectfreeze drying
dc.subjectgingiva disease
dc.subjecthistology
dc.subjectmethodology
dc.subjectpathology
dc.subjectperiodontics
dc.subjectwound healing
dc.subjectAnimals
dc.subjectBone Demineralization Technique
dc.subjectBone Transplantation
dc.subjectCollagen
dc.subjectDogs
dc.subjectFreeze Drying
dc.subjectGingival Recession
dc.subjectGuided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal
dc.subjectMembranes, Artificial
dc.subjectWound Healing
dc.titleTreatment of gingival recession with collagen membrane and DFDBA: A histometric study in dogs
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución