ライフサイエンスコーパス: root coverage

1 ) and from 2.48 mm to 0.17 mm with SCTG (95% root coverage).

2 val thickness, keratinized tissue width, and root coverage.

3 al tissue thickness, keratinized tissue, and root coverage.

4 and the remaining teeth obtained 80% to 90% root coverage.

5 te coverage of the graft resulted in greater root coverage.

6 toperative healing that resulted in complete root coverage.

7 e type of treatment rendered also influenced root coverage.

8 low-up time did not affect the percentage of root coverage.

9 e, and follow-up time) and mean and complete root coverage.

10 eighted flap thickness and mean and complete root coverage.

11 ized tissue around teeth that do not require root coverage.

12 significant factor associated with complete root coverage.

13 Both techniques are effective in attaining root coverage.

14 eir effect on gingival thickness and percent root coverage.

15 , width of keratinized gingiva, and complete root coverage.

16 cted utilizing the concept of GTR to promote root coverage.

17 graft (SCTG) is a predictable technique for root coverage.

18 side against the tooth, affected the percent root coverage.

19 s I or II AB and AC sites obtained about 93% root coverage.

20 wn particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage.

21 tive and a possible alternative material for root coverage.

22 s an effective and predictable procedure for root coverage.

23 ers identify the determinants of predictable root coverage.

24 ral techniques have been proposed to achieve root coverage.

25 coverage of 67% could actually amount to 92% root coverage.

26 es have equated percent defect coverage with root coverage.

27 months, representing 51.6% total attainable root coverage.

28 or three teeth and CTG+CAF for one tooth for root coverage.

29 of 21 treated recession defects showed a100% root coverage.

30 nally advanced flap and chorion membrane for root coverage.

31 and 14 of 21 treated GR defects showed 100% root coverage.

32 nally advanced flap and Chorion membrane for root coverage.

33 utcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) for root coverage.

34 keratinized tissue (wKT), and percentage of root coverage.

35 roblasts under a coronally advanced flap for root coverage.

36 H was observed after periodontal surgery for root coverage.

37 ree approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage.

38 nced flap (CAF) is the reference therapy for root coverage.

39 furcation depth, and for recession complete root coverage.

40 Both materials were successful in achieving root coverage.

41 74% recession depth reduction, 41% complete root coverage, 3 mm AL gain, and 1 mm KG gain.

42 4%), and percentage of defects with complete root coverage (55% vs. 41 %).

43 keratinized tissue (wKT); (5) percentage of root coverage; (6) root dentin hypersensitivity; (7) col

44 (P < 0.05) increased KG (2.1 mm vs. 1.1 mm), root coverage (81% vs. 74%), and percentage of defects w

45 m, test; -3.3 + 0.6 mm, control; P = 0.009), root coverage (90.8%, test; 98.6%, control; P = 0.013),

46 ter root coverage (P<0.001), 89.7% and 92.9% root coverage after 3 months and 6 months, respectively,

47 ely, while control sites had 56.6% and 66.8% root coverage after 3 months and 6 months, respectively.

48 The percent of root coverage after 6 months was 75% for GTRC and 63% fo

49 greater flap thickness to mean and complete root coverage after mucogingival therapy for recession d

50 Nine months after root coverage, all four premolars from each of the three

51 There was significantly more root coverage among test sites compared to control sites

52 s also favored the test group for percentage root coverage and change in wKT, whereas no statisticall

53 nt intergroup differences were seen for 100% root coverage and changes to CAL.

54 Percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage were calculated

55 l technique could provide better results for root coverage and greater amounts of keratinized tissue

56 ough differences between CTG and GTR in mean root coverage and prevalence of complete coverage consis

57 will predictably and significantly increase root coverage and regenerate buccal bone when used to tr

58 en weighted flap thickness and weighted mean root coverage and weighted complete root coverage (r = 0

59 2.43 mm presurgery to 0.48 mm with PCG (80% root coverage) and from 2.48 mm to 0.17 mm with SCTG (95

60 om 2.5 mm presurgery to 0.5 mm with GTR (81% root coverage), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with CTG (96%

61 CAL gain, percentage of root coverage, and complete root-coverage rates were sim

62 ductions in recession, greater percentage of root coverage, and increased wKT.

63 hout the use of DFDBA results in significant root coverage, and slight, but significant improvements

64 idence that allows periodontists to indicate root coverage as treatment for CDH.

65 SCTGE and SCTGN groups exhibited significant root coverage at 3 and 6 months compared to baseline (P

66 The average root coverage at 6 and 36 months was 89.86% +/- 15.85% a

67 out of 23 patients (60.9%) experienced 100% root coverage at the 24-week postoperative follow-up.

68 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm was associated with complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05).

69 The mean percentage of root coverage at the end of 6 months was 89.92% +/- 15.5

70 The mean percentage root coverage at the end of 6 months was 89.92+/-15.59%

71 ge), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with CTG (96% root coverage), at 6 months postsurgery.

72 no significant difference in the percent of root coverage between the two treatments (P = 0.82).

73 improved percentages of sites with complete root coverage but had no effect on other parameters.

74 y is highly predictable, and highly esthetic root coverage can be gained without requiring a second s

75 a-analysis, guided tissue regeneration-based root coverage can be used successfully to repair gingiva

76 achieved statistically significant (P <0.05) root coverage compared to baseline.

77 ps significantly increased the percentage of root coverage compared to CAF without EMD.

78 treatments resulted in a significant gain in root coverage compared with baseline.

79 correlated with the achievement of complete root coverage (CRC) after 6 months.

80 n analysis evaluated differences on complete root coverage (CRC) between RCTs with early (<10 days po

81 Complete root coverage (CRC) for CAF + EMD was 70.59%, significan

82 Percentage of RC, complete root coverage (CRC), width, and thickness of keratinized

83 rs can influence the achievement of complete root coverage (CRC).

84 EC], keratinized tissue width [KT], complete root coverage [CRC], and percentage of root coverage [PR

85 od; and 3) discuss additional refinements to root coverage data analysis.

86 engths will permit the determination of true root coverage data.

87 are to: 1) propose a new method of reporting root coverage data; 2) compare existing root coverage te

88 The percentage of sites with complete root coverage decreased from 55% at 6 months to 35% at 8

89 The total root-coverage esthetic score of the areas including trea

90 early postoperative healing of CTGs used for root coverage exhibits a significant but transient incre

91 This correlated to 86% root coverage for both treatments.

92 The average percentages of root coverage for control and test groups were 93.8% and

93 The average percentages of root coverage for test and control treatments, after 12

94 ialized gingival grafts (DGG) placed for non-root coverage gingival augmentation by laser Doppler flo

95 ce of adequate donor and recipient sites for root coverage grafting techniques should be assessed to

96 collar) provided predictable and successful root coverage (>/=89%).

97 The goal of guided tissue regeneration-based root coverage (GTRC) is to repair gingival recession via

98 Guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage has been utilized to correct gingival rece

99 Both approaches were capable of producing root coverage; however, use of the surgical microscope w

100 .86% +/- 18.16%, respectively, with complete root coverage in 24 (64.86%) and 21 (56.76%) of the 37 t

101 ssociated with a coronally advanced flap for root coverage in areas of localized tissue recession whe

102 between weighted thickness and weighted mean root coverage in connective tissue grafting and guided t

103 Factors having no effect on root coverage included maxillary versus mandibular sites

104 that has shown promising results in terms of root coverage, increased width of keratinized tissue and

105 that has shown promising results in terms of root coverage, increased width of keratinized tissue, an

106 zed palatal tissue (free gingival graft) for root coverage is a dated procedure.

107 Predictable root coverage is possible for single-tooth and multiple-

108 ingiva adjacent to teeth that do not require root coverage is the free gingival graft (FGG).

109 -14 showed no correlation with percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, or keratinized

110 se of a modified collagen membrane to attain root coverage may alleviate the need for donor site proc

111 nical trial was to compare the percentage of root coverage obtained with a coronally positioned flap

112 Complete root coverage occurred in three of the 10 treated teeth,

113 lap alone showed significantly more complete root coverage (odds ratio of 3.5), but compared with a c

114 ctively, compared to presurgical conditions: root coverage of 1.7 +/- 1.2 (65.9%) and 2.2 +/- 1.1 mm

115 Root coverage of 5 mm along with a 2-mm band of keratini

116 Mean root coverage of 73% (collagen membrane) and 84% (subepi

117 ttachment level of 2.7 +/- 0.2 mm, a gain in root coverage of 76 +/- 6% (P < 0.002), and a regenerati

118 th the GP+ and GP- sites demonstrated a mean root coverage of 87.4% and increased keratinized tissue

119 mm postoperatively, corresponding to a mean root coverage of 92.7% +/- 14.1%, was obtained.

120 Mean root coverage of 95% was obtained for both AB and AC sit

121 The SCTGE group had mean root coverage of 97.50% +/- 7.90% at 6 months compared t

122 alized or multiple GR defects not treated by root coverage or gingival augmentation procedures were c

123 ng and/or type of suture material) influence root coverage outcomes in recession defects treated with

124 y association between gingival thickness and root coverage outcomes.

125 sue graft (SCTG) procedures provide the best root coverage outcomes.

126 ostic model may be used to predict the final root coverage outcomes.

127 cts, with SCTG procedures providing the best root coverage outcomes.

128 removal (<10 days) can negatively influence root-coverage outcomes in single-tooth defects treated b

129 ation and Miller classification on the final root-coverage outcomes.

130 thod for coronally repositioning gingiva for root coverage over the maxillary central incisors while

131 .1 mm existed for weighted mean and complete root coverage (P <0.02).

132 Test sites demonstrated significantly better root coverage (P<0.001), 89.7% and 92.9% root coverage a

133 At 12 weeks, the mean root coverage percentages for FC and E groups were 93% a

134 urpose of this clinical trial was to compare root coverage, postoperative morbidity, and esthetic out

135 ckness of the gingiva, GR, and percentage of root coverage (PRC) were recorded by a calibrated examin

136 plete root coverage [CRC], and percentage of root coverage [PRC]) were evaluated before surgery and a

137 matrix derivative (EMD) on the percentage of root coverage, probing attachment level, and the amount

138 significant improvement in the percentage of root coverage, probing attachment levels, and increased

139 ical or clinical difference in the amount of root coverage, probing depth, or keratinized tissue in c

140 s pilot study, the application of PRP in CAF root coverage procedure provides no clinically measurabl

141 The clinical outcome of the root coverage procedure was not affected.

142 The aim is to evaluate the effect of root coverage procedure with a xenogenous collagen matri

143 r II gingival recession underwent a surgical root coverage procedure.

144 periodontal soft tissue, for example, after root coverage procedures and to detect relapses at an ea

145 e head resulted in higher GM stability after root coverage procedures compared with the use of a manu

146 The goal of the periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures group was to develop a consensu

147 safety of these toothbrushes after surgical root coverage procedures has not been published.

148 Most root coverage procedures have been described on non-rest

149 s for guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage procedures have reported promising results

150 Root coverage procedures improve patient OHRQoL by impac

151 fects, a common periodontal condition, using root coverage procedures is an important aspect of perio

152 Limited data are available that describe root coverage procedures on restored root surfaces.

153 p and graft position may be of importance in root coverage procedures outcome.

154 cientific evidence to conclude that surgical root coverage procedures predictably reduce CDH.

155 All reviewed root coverage procedures provide significant reduction i

156 Periodontal root coverage procedures to treat recession areas are in

157 te the differences in clinical parameters of root coverage procedures utilizing coronally advanced fl

158 Class I or II) that were treated by means of root coverage procedures were included.

159 CAF root coverage procedures were performed to correct the r

160 pplied in guided bone regeneration (GBR) and root coverage procedures with comparable success rates t

161 ADM versus coronally advanced flap (CAF) for root coverage procedures, and two studies comparing ADM

162 sed on the accompanying systematic review of root coverage procedures, including priorities for futur

163 ing ADM versus a connective tissue graft for root coverage procedures, two studies comparing ADM vers

164 could promote superior clinical outcomes in root coverage procedures.

165 ne in guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage procedures.

166 e factors that may affect the results of CAF root coverage procedures.

167 s the outcome of collagen membrane GTR-based root coverage procedures.

168 e for autogenous connective tissue grafts in root coverage procedures.

169 uccessfully as a barrier device in GTR-based root coverage procedures.

170 fically to investigate suturing protocols in root-coverage procedures.

171 ted mean root coverage and weighted complete root coverage (r = 0.646 and 0.454, respectively).

172 n, percentage of root coverage, and complete root-coverage rates were similar in the study groups.

173 sis was to compare the efficacy of ADM-based root coverage (RC) and ADM-based increase in keratinized

174 Root coverage (RC) and clinical attachment level (CAL) d

175 udy compared 6-month and 3-year outcomes for root coverage (RC) by coronally advanced flap (CAF) proc

176 lates evidence-based findings on soft tissue root coverage (RC) of recession-type defects to daily cl

177 Root coverage (RC), complete RC (CRC), attachment gain (

178 primary efficacy endpoint was percentage of root coverage (RC).

179 Complete root coverage, recession reduction, and amount of kerati

180 CTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession treatment.

181 n most cases, connective tissue grafting for root coverage should be preferred to guided tissue regen

182 D to the coronally advanced flap resulted in root coverage similar to the subepithelial connective ti

183 A comparison table of root coverage studies demonstrates that the connective t

184 this study with results obtained from other root coverage studies; 2) determine if multiple addition

185 y the literature on the efficacy of surgical root coverage techniques at reducing CDH in cases of gin

186 ting root coverage data; 2) compare existing root coverage techniques using the proposed data analysi

187 connective tissue with previously described root coverage techniques.

188 Although root coverage tended to be better with the addition of D

189 Clinical measurements included: percent root coverage, the amount of keratinized gingiva (KG), a

190 tematic review was analyzed, focusing on non-root coverage tissue grafts.

191 ble collagen membrane as a barrier device in root coverage treatment of gingival recession defects.

192 lts for at least 3 months, and detailed mean root coverage underwent review and statistical analysis.

193 ll-defined location, described the method of root coverage used, followed results for at least 3 mont

194 The aim of this study was to compare root coverage using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) with a

195 compare efficacy of the tunnel technique for root coverage using collagen matrix (CM) versus connecti

196 logically evaluate the efficacy of GTR-based root coverage using collagen membrane (GTRC) and to comp

197 tion, guided tissue regeneration (GTR)-based root coverage using collagen membrane (GTRC) has shown p

198 igate the changes in gingival dimensions and root coverage using the same surgical procedure but vary

199 GTR-based root coverage utilizing collagen membrane, with or witho

200 However, the final outcomes (percentage of root coverage) vary from case to case.

201 Prevalence of complete root coverage was 58% for the GTR group and 83% for the

202 Mean root coverage was 68.4 +/- 15.2% with COLL and 74.3 +/-

203 For example, percentage of root coverage was 77.21% +/- 29.10% for CAF + FDADM and

204 Complete root coverage was 79% (n = 15) for the test group and 76

205 The percentage of root coverage was 81.4% for the PDM and 83.4% for the AD

206 The mean root coverage was 83.5% +/- 21.8% in the CAF group and 8

207 Estimated root coverage was 91.56% +/- 11.74% for CTG and 93.29% +

208 Mean percentage of root coverage was 93.43% for the test group and 92.32% f

209 ntrol sites (P <0.01), whereas percentage of root coverage was 94.32% and 96.97%, respectively.

210 Complete root coverage was achieved in 87.5% and 58.3% of teeth t

211 Complete 100% root coverage was achieved in five patients in the GTRC

212 Complete root coverage was achieved over the maxillary central in

213 eighted gingival thickness and weighted mean root coverage was calculated based on standard error.

214 No significant difference in the amount of root coverage was found between the test and control gro

215 No additional root coverage was gained due to creeping attachment betw

216 No additional root coverage was gained due to creeping attachment betw

217 Complete root coverage was observed in 79% and 64% of the subject

218 One hundred percent root coverage was obtained 89.5% of the time with the co

219 stored with resin-modified glass ionomer and root coverage was obtained by a lateral sliding flap mob

220 Complete (100%) root coverage was obtained in 75% of the sites.

221 Successful root coverage was obtained on a resin-modified glass ion

222 gival thickness with both; 83.2% of expected root coverage was obtained with AD and 88.6% with CT (P=

223 At 6 months, complete root coverage was seen in nine of 10 and seven of 10 sub

224 Complete root coverage was significantly higher in participants w

225 Percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage were calculated at postoperative months 1,

226 Factors adversely affecting root coverage were membrane exposure postoperatively and

227 isplacement of GM with RecRed up to complete root coverage, whereas contralateral untreated sites sho

228 y, however, resulted in statistically better root coverage, width of keratinized gingiva, and complet

229 the models could explain the 86% of the mean root coverage with AERSA.

230 Both procedures resulted in successful root coverage with an increase in the width of keratiniz

231 The clinical success of root coverage with autogenous connective tissue (CT) or

232 al data and comparably high success rates of root coverage with CAF in systemically and periodontally

233 Root coverage with connective tissue grafts appears to b

234 nized tissue in coronally advanced flaps for root coverage with either of the two acellular dermal ma

235 icularly valuable when previous attempts for root coverage with soft tissue autografts have resulted

236 sue graft has the highest percentage of mean root coverage with the least variability.

237 An SCTG procedure was performed for root coverage, with uneventful initial postoperative hea