Does enamel matrix derivative application improve clinical outcomes after semilunar flap surgery? A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the treatment of gingival recessions by semilunar coronally positioned flap plus enamel matrix derivative (SCPF + EMD).

Materials and methods

Thirty patients with class I localized gingival recession were included. They were randomly allocated in two groups: SCPF + EMD and SCPF. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Patient/professional evaluation of esthetics and root sensitivity was performed.

Results

After 12 months, mean root coverage was 1.98 ± 0.33 mm for SCPF + EMD (90.86 ± 14.69%) and 1.85 ± 0.41 mm (79.76 ± 17.44%) for SCPF (p > 0.05). The esthetic evaluation by the patient showed preference for SCPF + EMD. According to the professional evaluation (QCE), the use of EMD decreases the appearance of postoperative scar tissue line. There was a significant reduction in root hypersensitivity with no further complaints by the patients.

Conclusions

The addition of EMD provides significantly better esthetics to SCPF, according to patient and professional assessments. SCPF + EMD is effective but not superior to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months.

Clinical relevance

Previous clinical trials showed that the combination of EMD with coronally advanced flaps may enhance the outcome of root coverage. There is a lack of studies testing the combination of EMD with SCPF. The combination SCPF + EMD provides better esthetics when compared to the SCPF and is effective, but not superior, to SCPF for root coverage, after 12 months.

Trial registration: NCT02459704

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Bouchard P, Malet J, Borghetti A (2001) Decision-making in aesthetics: root coverage revisited. Periodontol 2000 27:97–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Roccuzzo M, Bunino M, Needleman I, Sanz M (2002) Periodontal plastic surgery for treatment of localized gingival recessions: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 29:178–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA (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 36:659–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tarnow DP (1986) Semilunar coronally repositioned flap. J Clin Periodontol 13(3):182–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tarnow DP (1994) Solving restorative esthetic dilemmas with the semilunar coronally positioned flap. J Esthet Dent 6(2):61–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Thompson BK, Meyer R, Singh GB, Mitchell W (2000) Densitization of exposed of root surfaces using a semilunar coronally positioned flap. Gen Dent 48(1):68–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Casati MZ, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum EA, Nogueira GR, Sallum AW (2001) Tratamento de recessões gengivaispela técnica de retalho semilunar posicionado coronariamente. Rev Assoc Paul Cir Dent 55(3):169–172

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Haghighat K (2006) Modified semilunar coronally advanced flap. J Periodontol 77(7):1274–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    de Campos GV, Bittencourt S, Sallum AW, Nociti Júnior FH, Sallum EA, Casati MZ (2006) Achieving primary closure and enhancing aesthetics with periodontal microsurgery. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 18(7):449–454

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bittencourt S, Ribeiro E. del P, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2007) Root surface biomodification with EDTA for the treatment of gingival recession with a semilunar coronally repositioned flap. J Periodontol 78(9):1695–1701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bittencourt S, Del Peloso Ribeiro E, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2006) Comparative 6-month clinical study of a semilunar coronally positioned flap and subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession. J Periodontol 77(2):174–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bittencourt S, Ribeiro E, del P, Sallum EA, Sallum AW, Nociti FH Jr, Casati MZ (2009) Semilunar coronally positioned flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession: a 30-month follow-up study. J Periodontol 80(7):1076–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hammarström L (1997) Enamel matrix, cementum development and regeneration. J Clin Periodontol 24:658–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lyngstadaas SP, Wohlfahrt JC, Brookes SJ, Paine ML, Snead ML, Reseland JE (2009) Enamel matrix proteins: old molecules for new applications. Orthod Craniofac Res 12(3):243–253

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cheng GL, Fu E, Tu YK, Shen EC, Chiu HC, Huang RY, Yuh DY, Chiang CY (2015) Root coverage by coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft and/or enamel matrix derivative: a meta-analysis. J Periodontal Res 50(2):220–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cairo F, Nieri M, Pagliaro U (2014) Efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures in the treatment of localized facial gingival recessions. A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 41(15):44–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Koop R, Merheb J, Quirynen M (2012) Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review. J Periodontol 83(6):707–720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Miron RJ, Dard M, Weinreb M (2015) Enamel matrix derivative, inflammation and soft tissue wound healing. J Periodontal Res 50(5):555–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Schiff T, Dotson M, Cohen S, DeVizio W, Volpe A (1994) Efficacy of a dentifrice containing potassium nitrate, soluble pyrophosphate, PVM/MA copolymer, and sodium fluoride on dentinal hypersensitivity: a twelve week clinical study. J Clin Dent 5(Sp Is):87–92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kerner S, Sarfati A, Katsahian S, Jaumet V, Micheau C, Mora F, Monnet-Corti V, Bouchard P (2009) Qualitative cosmetic evaluation after root-coverage procedures. J Periodontol 80(1):41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Santamaria MP, Queiroz LA, Mathias IF, Neves FL, Silveira CA, Bresciani E, Jardini MA, Sallum EA (2016) Resin composite plus connective tissue graft to treat single maxillary gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion: randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 43(5):461–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Modica F, Del Pizzo M, Roccuzzo M, Romagnoli R (2000) Coronally advanced flap for the treatment of buccal gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative. A split-mouth study. J Periodontol 71(11):1693–1698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Del Pizzo M, Zucchelli G, Modica F, Villa R, Debernardi C (2005) Coronally advanced flap with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a 2-year study. J Clin Periodontol 32(11):1181–1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Castellanos TA, de la Rosa RM, de la Garza M, Caffesse RG (2006) Enamel matrix derivative and coronal flaps to cover marginal tissue recessions. J Periodontol 77(1):7–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Pilloni A, Paolantonio M, Camargo PM (2006) Root coverage with a coronally positioned flap used in combination with enamel matrix derivative: 18-month clinical evaluation. J Periodontol 77(12):2031–2039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tonetti MS, Jepsen S (2014) Working Group 2 of the European Workshop on Periodontology. Clinical efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures: consensus report of group 2 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 41(Suppl 15):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Cheng YF, Chen JW, Lin SJ, Lu HK (2007) Is coronally positioned flap procedure adjunct with enamel matrix derivative or root conditioning a relevant predictor for achieving root coverage? A systemic review. J Periodont Res 42:474–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Nieri M (2008) Treatment of gingival recession with coronally advanced flap procedures: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 35(8):136–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rebele SF, Zuhr O, Schneider D, Jung RE, Hürzeler M (2014) Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part II. Volumetric studies on healing dynamics and gingival dimensions. J Clin Periodontol 41(6):593–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sculean A, Alessandri R, Miron RJ, Salvi EG, Bosshardt DD (2011) Enamel matrix proteins and periodontal wound healing and regeneration. Clin Adv Periodontics 1:101–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gruber R, Stähli A, Miron RJ, Bosshardt DD, Sculean A (2015) Common target genes of palatal and gingival fibroblasts for EMD: the microarray approach. J Periodontal Res 50(1):103–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the financial support (masters scholarship) provided by the Research Funding Agency from São Paulo State (FAPESP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil (process #2013/13098-9).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabela Lima França-Grohmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

França-Grohmann, I.L., Sangiorgio, J.P.M., Bueno, M.R. et al. Does enamel matrix derivative application improve clinical outcomes after semilunar flap surgery? A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 23, 879–887 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2506-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dental enamel proteins
  • Gingival recession/therapy
  • Esthetics
  • Tooth root/surgery, surgical flap