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

3 eration of the intrabony defect coupled with root coverage.

4 roblasts under a coronally advanced flap for root coverage.

5 H was observed after periodontal surgery for root coverage.

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

7 furcation depth, and for recession complete root coverage.

8 Both materials were successful in achieving root coverage.

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

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

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

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

13 toperative healing that resulted in complete root coverage.

14 e type of treatment rendered also influenced root coverage.

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

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

17 eighted flap thickness and mean and complete root coverage.

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

19 significant factor associated with complete root coverage.

20 Both techniques are effective in attaining root coverage.

21 eir effect on gingival thickness and percent root coverage.

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

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

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

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

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

27 wn particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage.

28 tive and a possible alternative material for root coverage.

29 s an effective and predictable procedure for root coverage.

30 ers identify the determinants of predictable root coverage.

31 ral techniques have been proposed to achieve root coverage.

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

33 es have equated percent defect coverage with root coverage.

34 months, representing 51.6% total attainable root coverage.

35 jacent teeth seems to be more supportive for root coverage.

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

37 neration coupled with the provision of tooth root coverage.

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

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

40 nally advanced flap and chorion membrane for root coverage.

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

42 nally advanced flap and Chorion membrane for root coverage.

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

44 95 pertaining to root coverage (3,539 treated gingival recessions [GRs]),

45 74% recession depth reduction, 41% complete root coverage, 3 mm AL gain, and 1 mm KG gain.

46 4%), and percentage of defects with complete root coverage (55% vs. 41 %).

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

48 ference was observed regarding the estimated root coverage (73.54 vs.

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

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

51 play a key role in determining the amount of root coverage achievable, with maxillary canines and inc

52 zone of keratinized tissue and the amount of root coverage achieved 3 months postoperatively at the r

53 Mean root coverage achieved was 2.1 +/- 0.2 mm in the 1-mm th

54 a significant difference in the stability of root coverage after 240 +/- 12 months between CTG and GT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63 Percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage were calculated

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

65 imitations, our results suggest that similar root coverage and increase in the width and thickness of

66 CTG resulted in significantly greater root coverage and increased keratinized tissue width com

67 Long-term stability of root coverage and patient-perceived esthetic outcomes fa

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

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

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

71 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

72 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%

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

74 ncreased risk of occurrence, size, degree of root coverage, and extent of inflammatory periapical les

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

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

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

78 ModFGG resulted in more pronounced root coverage at 1 year compared to FGG (91.8% vs.

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

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

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

82 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm was associated with complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05).

83 However, increased root coverage at the CTG sites was accounted for by incr

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

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

86 Having a complete root coverage at the recall visit was also significantly

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

88 e much more likely to present improvement in root coverage between 6 months and 2 years, exhibiting c

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

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

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

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

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

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

95 GTR resulted in significantly better root coverage compared with baseline after 3 months (2.2

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

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

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

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

100 ighest mean root coverage (mRC) and complete root coverage (CRC) outcome (P < 0.05).

101 Root coverage (RC) percentage and complete root coverage (CRC) were calculated.

102 A frequentist NMA was conducted for complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), and kerat

103 Outcome measures included complete root coverage (CRC), recession reduction, keratinized ti

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

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

106 t (i.e., mean root coverage [MRC%], complete root coverage [CRC%], keratinized tissue width [KTW], gi

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

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

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

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

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

112 modes produced favorable esthetic outcomes (root coverage esthetic score [RES] 9.51+/- 1.01 tests vs

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

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

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

116 At 2 years, mean root coverage for control and test group was 89.5% +/- 1

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

118 Average percent root coverage for CTG+CAF was 90.5% +/- 14.87% versus 70

119 Average percent root coverage for CTG+CAF was 90.5% 14.87% versus 70.7%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

127 .86% +/- 18.16%, respectively, with complete root coverage in 24 (64.86%) and 21 (56.76%) of the 37 t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 -14 showed no correlation with percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, or keratinized

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

138 sextant) was associated to the highest mean root coverage (mRC) and complete root coverage (CRC) out

139 ucted for complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), and keratinized tissue width (KTW)

140 in clinical outcomes of interest (i.e., mean root coverage [MRC%], complete root coverage [CRC%], ker

141 Clinical parameters (recession depth, mean root coverage [mRC], keratinized tissue width [KTW], and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

154 type of approach based on having performed a root coverage, or non-root coverage procedure.

155 e addition of EMD to CTG results in improved root coverage outcomes and higher amounts of KT width 36

156 The stability of root coverage outcomes has gained a great deal of intere

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

158 us, the aim of this study was to observe the root coverage outcomes of coronally advanced flap with A

159 at includes the novelty of assessing time on root coverage outcomes while simultaneously comparing di

160 y association between gingival thickness and root coverage outcomes.

161 has been shown to play a significant role on root coverage outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

168 .1 mm existed for weighted mean and complete root coverage (P <0.02).

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

170 keratinized tissue (KT) width, percentage of root coverage, patient-centered outcomes were compared b

171 CTG showed significantly better relative root coverage percentage than GTR after 3 (P = 0.026) an

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

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

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

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

176 The corresponding complete root coverage prevalence was 68.4% and 50% (P = 0.4).

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

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

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

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

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

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

183 on having performed a root coverage, or non-root coverage procedure.

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

185 d gingival recessions [GRs]), and 10 for non-root coverage procedures (699 total treated sites).

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

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

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

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

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

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

192 Root coverage procedures improve patient OHRQoL by impac

193 ture pertaining to the outcomes of validated root coverage procedures in specific scenarios, which ca

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

195 ical trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of root coverage procedures of at least 2 time points to es

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

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

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

199 All reviewed root coverage procedures provide significant reduction i

200 The analysis on root coverage procedures showed that all investigated te

201 Periodontal root coverage procedures to treat recession areas are in

202 uscript reviews soft tissue augmentation and root coverage procedures using bioengineered living cell

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

204 ble to significantly enhance GT, while KT in root coverage procedures was significantly enhanced with

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

206 CAF root coverage procedures were performed to correct the r

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

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

209 e-art review on the efficacy of biologics in root coverage procedures, including enamel matrix deriva

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

211 For non-root coverage procedures, only the changes in KT could b

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

213 cantly enhanced with CTG and ADM, and in non-root coverage procedures, with ADM, CM, FGG, and LCC com

214 ts in keratinized tissue augmentation and in root coverage procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

220 could promote superior clinical outcomes in root coverage procedures.

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

222 treatment of gingival recession defects for root coverage purposes.

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

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

225 ulted in significantly more gains in KTW and root coverage (RC) after 5 years.

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

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

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

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

230 Root coverage (RC) percentage and complete root coverage

231 iew (SR) evaluated the efficacy of different root coverage (RC) procedures in the treatment of single

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

240 d tissue width is an important predictor for root coverage success while VCMX depends on it for great

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

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

243 connective tissue with previously described root coverage techniques.

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

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

246 (GRD) with a minimum depth of 2 mm underwent root coverage therapy consisting of a coronally advanced

247 ihood of achieving CRC can be expected after root coverage therapy via CAF + CTG in sites presenting

248 ation (GTR) using bioabsorbable barriers for root coverage therapy.

249 plant soft tissue phenotype modification and root coverage therapy.

250 uld still be considered the gold-standard in root coverage therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

273 Complete root coverage was achieved over the maxillary central in

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

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

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

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

278 after therapy with CTG, significantly better root coverage was observed compared with baseline (3 mon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 rceived pain, while presenting with complete root coverage was significantly associated with patient

287 Complete root coverage was significantly higher in participants w

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

289 Factors adversely affecting root coverage were membrane exposure postoperatively and

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

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

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

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

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

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

296 Root coverage with connective tissue grafts appears to b

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

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

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

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