ライフサイエンスコーパス: gingival recession

1 echnique using PCG was effective in reducing gingival recession.

2 connective tissue to treat multiple areas of gingival recession.

3 ough #31 were classified as Miller Class III gingival recession.

4 ap (CAF) has been shown to effectively treat gingival recession.

5 y advanced flap (CAF) has been used to treat gingival recession.

6 e an alternative graft material for treating gingival recession.

7 ationship between occlusal discrepancies and gingival recession.

8 he current treatment of choice for reversing gingival recession.

9 as subepithelial grafts for the treatment of gingival recession.

10 an effective procedure for the treatment of gingival recession.

11 dly broadened clinicians' abilities to treat gingival recession.

12 obing depths, clinical attachment level, and gingival recession.

13 igating the relationship between smoking and gingival recession.

14 omes of clinical treatments in patients with gingival recession.

15 erage techniques at reducing CDH in cases of gingival recession.

16 zyme for the modulation of bone turnover and gingival recession.

17 ntal elements to determine probing depth and gingival recession.

18 cting optimally effective protocols to treat gingival recession.

19 ed for reproducible volumetric evaluation of gingival recession.

20 h, good preservation of the papillae, and no gingival recession.

21 e tissue grafts performed to cover localized gingival recessions.

22 d similar results in the treatment of single gingival recessions.

23 f CTG is an effective treatment for multiple gingival recessions.

24 dvanced flap technique (CAF) to treat single gingival recessions.

25 advanced flap (CAF) procedures in localized gingival recessions.

26 als in the treatment of Miller Class I or II gingival recessions.

27 ical benefits in the treatment of teeth with gingival recessions.

28 of a surgical microscope in the treatment of gingival recessions.

29 (PD; 6.3 +/- 1.1 mm and 6.2 +/- 1.1 mm), and gingival recession (0.1 +/- 1.9 mm and 0.2 +/- 1.4 mm).

30 Changes in gingival recession (0.29 +/- 0.68 mm versus 0.15 +/- 0.5

31 Changes in gingival recession (0.29 0.68 mm versus 0.15 0.55 mm, P

32 and was associated with minimal increase in gingival recession (0.4 +/- 0.7 mm).

33 and was associated with minimal increase in gingival recession (-0.1 +/- 0.7 mm).

34 Sixty RCTs with a total of 2,554 gingival recessions (1,864 patients) were included in th

35 ix patients participated, each providing one gingival recession; 19 received citric acid demineraliza

36 one or more tooth surfaces with > or = 3 mm gingival recession; 53.2 million have gingival bleeding;

37 Gingival recession accounted for a significant amount of

38 h severe attachment loss of sudden onset and gingival recession affecting the facial right surfaces o

39 nts with bilateral recession type 1 multiple gingival recessions after 6 months postoperatively.

40 sis of acute gingivitis, chronic gingivitis, gingival recession, aggressive or acute periodontitis, c

41 , generalized early-onset periodontitis, and gingival recession all had similar levels of anti-PC IgG

42 Gingival recession and a thin or absent buccal plate occ

43 ssue graft (CTG) is a popular means to treat gingival recession and augment keratinized tissue.

44 ly significant difference was only found for gingival recession and bone fill, yielding a more favora

45 ic parameters and other clinical findings to gingival recession and buccal bone conditions.

46 cks had the highest prevalence and extent of gingival recession and dental calculus, whereas Mexican

47 n a differential diagnosis in cases of rapid gingival recession and dental erosion of unknown etiolog

48 esponse to treatment of a patient with rapid gingival recession and dental erosion secondary to local

49 s assessed through full-mouth evaluations of gingival recession and probing pocket depth.

50 ent level gain, pocket depth reduction, less gingival recession and radiographic linear bone gain.

51 crevicular fluid (GCF) samples from sites of gingival recession and saliva; and 2) clinical outcomes

52 mine the association between the presence of gingival recession and the condition of radiographic buc

53 ar) and tongue barbell size (stem length) on gingival recession and tooth chipping.

54 Gingival recession and white mucosal lesions frequently

55 ex, probing depth, probing attachment level, gingival recession, and bleeding on probing.

56 ue measurements included probing depth (PD), gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL).

57 e index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL).

58 tachment loss and probing depth, > or = 3 mm gingival recession, and dental calculus.

59 , vertical clinical attachment level (VCAL), gingival recession, and horizontal probing depth (HPD).

60 ding index, probing depth, attachment level, gingival recession, and open horizontal and vertical fur

61 presentation were pain, rapidly progressive gingival recession, and significant changes in alveolar

62 of the 2017 classification of phenotype and gingival recession, and to stress why it should be fully

63 ctory solution in the treatment of localized gingival recessions, and 2) citric acid demineralization

64 (PD); 2) clinical attachment level (CAL); 3) gingival recession; and 4) percentage of sites with blee

65 nship; 3) previous orthodontic treatment; 4) gingival recession; and 5) band of keratinized gingiva f

66 Dental calculus, gingival bleeding, and gingival recession are common in the U.S. adult populati

67 esenting multiple combined defects, that is, gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical

68 The areas of gingival recession associated with teeth #18 through #22

69 nt increase in the rate of CAL gain, reduced gingival recession at 3 months post-surgery, and improve

70 higher gingival index and amount of lingual gingival recession at both time periods compared to cont

71 Total of 30 patients with RT1 gingival recessions at mandibular incisors were enrolled

72 investigators, included CAL, probing depth, gingival recession, bleeding on probing (BOP), visible p

73 inical attachment loss (AL), the presence of gingival recession, bleeding on probing, and full-mouth

74 parameters, including probing pocket depth, gingival recession, bleeding on probing, approximal plaq

75 to limit the post-surgery increase in buccal gingival recession (bREC), effect of a connective tissue

76 inically evaluate the treatment of localized gingival recessions by using gingival unit grafts (palat

77 The mean gingival recession changed from +0.1 mm at surgery to 1.

78 ntly different clinical attachment level and gingival recession changes by the end of the maintenance

79 Differences in changes of PD, gingival recession, clinical attachment level (CAL), mod

80 ericans had similar prevalence and extent of gingival recession compared with non-Hispanic whites.

81 th thin and narrow gingiva tend to have more gingival recession compared with those with thick and wi

82 the RC, KMW, or CAL of Miller Class I and II gingival recessions compared with the other treatment mo

83 ative, can be successfully used in obtaining gingival recession coverage.

84 Gingival recession defect (GRD) may be defined as an api

85 ness of intraoral photography for diagnosing gingival recession defects (GRD) according to the 2018 C

86 eproducibility of the 2018 Classification of Gingival Recession Defects (GRD) could be applied when c

87 Patients presenting gingival recession defects (GRD) with a minimum depth of

88 ative approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession defects (GRD).

89 ion defects using the 2018 Classification of Gingival Recession Defects and Gingival Phenotype as pro

90 The 2018 Classification of Gingival Recession Defects and Gingival Phenotype is cli

91 omes following surgical root coverage at RT1 gingival recession defects at mandibular incisors, using

92 Treatment of human gingival recession defects by means of either GTR or CTG

93 All studies reported on the treatment of gingival recession defects for root coverage purposes.

94 of these two therapies in surgically created gingival recession defects in restoring missing cementum

95 nty-six patients with Miller's Class I or II gingival recession defects of 2.5 mm were recruited for

96 Overall, data from 325 single gingival recession defects revealed a statistically sign

97 etic absorbable devices for the treatment of gingival recession defects should be advised of the poss

98 ) in combination with a CAF in subjects with gingival recession defects using a randomized, controlle

99 ng international experts on the diagnosis of gingival recession defects using the 2018 Classification

100 ted that regeneration of the periodontium in gingival recession defects was possible through a growth

101 Seventeen patients with 40 bilateral gingival recession defects were compared.

102 Standardized intraoral photographs from 28 gingival recession defects were evaluated twice by 16 ex

103 ers, status biochemically verified, with RT1 gingival recession defects were recruited and completed

104 Standardized gingival recession defects were surgically created on th

105 randomized controlled trial, Miller Class II gingival recession defects were treated with either a co

106 d root coverage has been utilized to correct gingival recession defects with promising results.

107 Management of gingival recession defects, a common periodontal conditi

108 polylactic acid barrier was used to correct gingival recession defects, were evaluated.

109 eatment modalities for clinically correcting gingival recession defects.

110 coverage can be used successfully to repair gingival recession defects.

111 an be successfully used for the treatment of gingival recession defects.

112 ctive tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession defects.

113 acid-based barrier in the treatment of human gingival recession defects.

114 barrier device in root coverage treatment of gingival recession defects.

115 es (CMs) have been used for the treatment of gingival recession defects.

116 Clinical parameters, such as vertical gingival recession depth (VRD), clinical attachment leve

117 y prevent the development and progression of gingival recession, especially when restorative margins

118 identified that used GTR approaches to treat gingival recession from January 1990 to October 2001.

119 y was to assess the prevalence and extent of gingival recession, gingival bleeding, and dental calcul

120 Gingival recession, gingival bleeding, and dental calcul

121 Males had significantly more gingival recession, gingival bleeding, subgingival calcu

122 ative caries experience), gingival bleeding, gingival recession, gingival probing depth, and periodon

123 ogous sites (control group), with or without gingival recession (GR) and with attached gingiva, were

124 advanced flap (CAF versus CAF + CM) to treat gingival recession (GR) associated with non-carious cerv

125 dy is to evaluate the 2-year term results of gingival recession (GR) associated with non-carious cerv

126 d amount of attached gingiva associated with gingival recession (GR) at baseline were treated with FG

127 inical outcomes after treatment of localized gingival recession (GR) by a coronally advanced flap (CA

128 Root exposure due to gingival recession (GR) can cause cervical dentin hypers

129 t patients presenting with 21 Miller Class I gingival recession (GR) defects (isolated or adjacent mu

130 s the long-term outcomes of untreated buccal gingival recession (GR) defects and the associated repor

131 gical approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession (GR) defects are documented in the li

132 Gingival recession (GR) defects can be treated by variou

133 The effective treatment of gingival recession (GR) defects is crucial for predictab

134 ques in the treatment of localized maxillary gingival recession (GR) defects, 1 and 5 years after sur

135 or TUN in the treatment of single maxillary gingival recession (GR) defects.

136 TG) associated with LLLT in the treatment of gingival recession (GR) defects.

137 ividual, and approximately 10% of teeth with gingival recession (GR) had DH.

138 Combined defects (CDs), where gingival recession (GR) is associated with non-carious c

139 Gingival recession (GR) is one of the most common esthet

140 ncluded clinical attachment levels (CAL) and gingival recession (GR) measured clinically and linear b

141 Gingival recession (GR) might be associated with patient

142 ient-centered parameters in the treatment of gingival recession (GR) RT1 associated with non-carious

143 nce of attached gingiva (AG) associated with gingival recession (GR) treated with FGG; and 2) contral

144 h (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and gingival recession (GR) were evaluated at 3 and 6 months

145 , clinical attachment level (CAL), amount of gingival recession (GR), and change in class of clinical

146 depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and radiographic bone level (BL

147 epth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), bleeding on probing (BOP), and

148 attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaq

149 hip between toothbrushing and development of gingival recession (GR), but relevant GR data for the mu

150 Probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), clinical attachment level (CAL)

151 years of follow-up (T2): probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), clinical attachment level (CAL)

152 bing (BoP), periodontal probing depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), clinical attachment level (CAL)

153 ever, aPDT resulted in a lower occurrence of gingival recession (GR), dentin hypersensitivity (DH) an

154 depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), gingival index (GI), bleeding o

155 Clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), and radiogr

156 such as clinical attachment level (CAL) and gingival recession (GR).

157 can manifest loss of periodontal support and gingival recession (GR).

158 he risk indicators associated with midfacial gingival recessions (GR) in the natural dentition esthet

159 ures in the treatment of single and multiple gingival recessions (GR).

160 epth [PPD], clinical attachment level [CAL], gingival recession [GR]) and radiographic (defect Bone l

161 h [PD], clinical attachment level [CAL], and gingival recession [GR]) and radiographic (defect bone l

162 , vertical clinical attachment level [VCAL], gingival recession [GR]) and radiographic (vertical bone

163 urface area (AERSA) as a prognostic test for gingival recessions (GRs) and to compare the predictive

164 modify the gingival phenotype of sites with gingival recessions (GRs) associated with non-carious ce

165 Fifteen bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions (GRs) were selected.

166 ntal attachment apparatus when used to treat gingival recessions (GRs).

167 edures performed for the treatment of single gingival recessions (GRs).

168 5 pertaining to root coverage (3,539 treated gingival recessions [GRs]), and 10 for non-root coverage

169 7.0% and 5.8% of teeth per individual showed gingival recession > or = 3 mm and > or = 5 mm, respecti

170 ients with bilateral Miller's Class I or II (gingival recession > or = 3.0 mm) recession defects were

171 either Miller Class I or II description and gingival recession > or =2.5 mm.

172 with bilateral Miller's Class I or II buccal gingival recessions >/=2.0 mm in canines or premolars we

173 CT), 30 patients with Miller Class II buccal gingival recession, > or = 3 mm deep and > or = 3 mm wid

174 A relationship between occlusal forces and gingival recession has been postulated in the past.

175 eration (GTR) procedures in the treatment of gingival recession has shown promising results and is ga

176 l matrix (ADM) for the treatment of isolated gingival recessions has not yet been evaluated.

177 tic surgery techniques for the management of gingival recession have typically used soft tissue graft

178 Data on Class I, II, III, and IV gingival recessions, histologic attachment achieved afte

179 This study describes the epidemiology of gingival recession in a representative, urban Brazilian

180 There was significantly less gingival recession in the bioactive glass sites (1.29 mm

181 ), missing teeth (r = 0.784; P = 0.001), and gingival recession in the esthetic zone (r = 0.718; P =

182 r = 0.517; P = 0.017); and the more sites of gingival recession in the esthetic zone the subjects had

183 ation of a high prevalence of tooth loss and gingival recession in the oldest age cohorts.

184 inicopathologic case report documents severe gingival recession in the primary dentition of a trisomy

185 diseases may reduce the prevalence of severe gingival recession in this and similar populations.

186 The high level of gingival recession in this Brazilian population may be p

187 Gingival recession increased in both groups, with no gro

188 The prevalence, extent, and severity of gingival recession increased with age, as did the preval

189 Prevalence of moderate and severe LA and gingival recession increased with age, while prevalence

190 eding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival recession, interleukin-1beta, tumor necrosis fa

191 ertained to the unesthetic appearance of the gingival recession involving both maxillary central inci

192 Gingival recession is a common manifestation of periodon

193 Gingival recession is a frequent clinical finding in the

194 Gingival recession is characterized by the apical displa

195 Measurements of gingival bleeding, gingival recession level, periodontal pocket depth, and

196 ed flap (CAF) for treating multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) remains to be determined.

197 ws the reproducible volumetric evaluation of gingival recession marks on stone replicas.

198 bing depth, clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession, number of missing teeth, and radiogr

199 ange in buccal (bREC) and interdental (iREC) gingival recession observed at 6 months after treatment

200 Twenty-two patients with similar isolated gingival recession of > or = 2 mm on 2 separate teeth we

201 .47 mm (P < 0.0001), and minimal increase in gingival recession of 0.23 +/- 0.62 mm (P = 0.168) were

202 .47 mm (P < 0.0001), and minimal increase in gingival recession of 0.23 0.62 mm (P = 0.168) were obse

203 At 12 months, a mean +/- SE gingival recession of 1.1 +/- 0.3 mm in OF and 0.9 +/- 0

204 hereas lower bicuspid teeth were at risk for gingival recession on buccal surfaces.

205 22) with tongue piercings were examined for gingival recession on the lingual aspect of the 12 anter

206 to thick gingival phenotype in sites without gingival recession or mucogingival deformity.

207 ive tissue grafts (CTG) for the treatment of gingival recession, over a 3-month period.

208 , despite many advantages, carries a risk of gingival recession, papilla loss, collapse of ridge cont

209 e index (FMPI), full-mouth BOP score (FMBS), gingival recession, PD, and clinical attachment level (C

210 Clinical measurements included gingival recession, PD, clinical attachment level, and m

211 odontal examination including probing depth, gingival recession, plaque index, and bleeding on probin

212 PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession, plaque index, GI, and bleeding on pr

213 caries, defective restoration presence, and gingival recession presence.

214 Gingival recession presents destruction of both soft and

215 The results indicate that greater gingival recession prevalence and extent are associated

216 ll-mouth plaque score), bleeding on probing, gingival recession, probing depth (PD), and vertical (VA

217 , and 1.29 1.56 and 2.15 1.33 mm increase in gingival recession (REC) for the non-surgical and surgic

218 achment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and gingival recession (REC) were assessed immediately befor

219 depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), gingival recession (REC), and bleeding on probing (BoP)

220 depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), bleeding on probing (BOP), sup

221 Probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL

222 alternative to CTG+CAF for the treatment of gingival recessions (REC), in a prospective randomized,

223 Twenty-four patients with 266 gingival recessions received both control and test treat

224 implementation of this new classification of gingival recessions, recent articles still report data b

225 and flap alone showed a similar tendency for gingival recession recurrence.

226 Gingival recession remains an important problem in denta

227 Gingival recession represents a significant concern for

228 a free gingival graft to restore an area of gingival recession resulting from an oral lesion.

229 T), keratinized tissue width (KTW), relative gingival recession (RGR), relative clinical attachment l

230 reatment of root sensitivity associated with gingival recession stemming from toothbrush abrasion.

231 em, the 2017 classification of phenotype and gingival recession successfully incorporated the most re

232 3.9%; C: 30.11 +/- 6.3%) and less change in gingival recession (T: -0.13 +/- 0.2 mm; C: -0.50 +/- 0.

233 5.61 3.9%; C: 30.11 6.3%) and less change in gingival recession (T: -0.13 0.2 mm; C: -0.50 0.6 mm) (P

234 ignificantly higher prevalence and extent of gingival recession than females.

235 prevalence and extent of attachment loss and gingival recession than non-smokers, suggesting poorer p

236 n, higher clinical attachment gain, and less gingival recession than the control group at 3 and 6 mon

237 e depth of the midfacial, mesial, and distal gingival recession; the recession type (RT); keratinized

238 two conditions is unclear and the ability of gingival recession to predict underlying buccal bone def

239 Four masked operators evaluated the same gingival recessions twice in a clinical setting and twic

240 duals with at least one Miller Class I or II gingival recession underwent a surgical root coverage pr

241 mphigoid in a patient with multiple sites of gingival recession using connective tissue grafting to a

242 ronic acid (HA) in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions, using a modified coronally advanced

243 tion-based root coverage (GTRC) is to repair gingival recession via new attachment formation.

244 The determination of gingival recession volume was highly reproducible.

245 Accordingly, gingival recession was a significant predictor for bucca

246 The most significant results were that gingival recession was greater for the group treated wit

247 Prevalence and severity of gingival recession was higher at the sites with thin gin

248 Gingival recession was much more prevalent and also more

249 Gingival recession was not associated with the thickness

250 Gingival recession was present at 32.9% of maxillary ant

251 Probing depths and gingival recession were measured at two points (mid-labi

252 , maxillary anterior teeth with pre-existing gingival recession were more likely to have thin (<1 mm)

253 18-60 years) with a single Cairo type 1 or 2 gingival recession were randomly assigned to test (n = 1

254 ty-two systemically healthy individuals with gingival recession were randomly assigned to two groups:

255 Differences in the volume of the gingival recession were recorded with reference to the i

256 Marks designating gingival recession were scratched into the anterior segm

257 th at least one site of Miller Class I or II gingival recession were treated by a coronally advanced

258 Seventy-five patients presenting single RT1 gingival recession were treated by CAF (control group, n

259 Gingival recessions were randomly designated to receive

260 althy adult subjects with multiple bilateral gingival recessions were treated with CTGs and PC combin

261 venteen arches in 15 patients with bilateral gingival recessions were treated with SCTG and PCG cover

262 buting a pair of Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recessions, were treated.

263 titis may have increased attachment loss and gingival recession when compared to their HIV-negative c

264 s were related to the presence or absence of gingival recession, while patient sex, age, and the apic

265 results suggest that the treatment of human gingival recession with a bioabsorbable membrane with or

266 This case demonstrates the treatment of gingival recession with a novel collagen bilayer membran

267 s of CAL gains, shallow pockets, and minimal gingival recession with the four regenerative approaches

268 in the treatment of multiple, contralateral gingival recessions with clinical, esthetic, and histolo