A 2-year follow-up of root coverage using sub-pedicle acellular dermal matrix allografts and subepithelial connective tissue autografts.

BACKGROUND Coverage of roots exposed by gingival recession is one of the main objectives of periodontal reconstructive surgery. A large variety of mucogingival grafting procedures are available. However, the long-term effectiveness of this procedure is still not clear. This study compared the effectiveness of sub-pedicle acellular dermal matrix allografts with subepithelial connective tissue autografts in achieving root coverage 2 years postoperatively. METHODS One hundred one (101) patients were treated with dermal matrix allografts (mean age, 28.4+/- 0.7 years; mean recession, 4.2 mm) and 65 patients treated with connective tissue graft (mean age, 30.1+/- 1.4 years; mean recession, 4.9 mm). All patients underwent full periodontal evaluation and presurgical preparation, including oral hygiene instruction and scaling and root planing. The exposed roots were thoroughly planed and covered by a graft without any further root treatment or conditioning. There were no differences in the average age, time of follow-up, or gender between the two groups. Patients were evaluated periodically between 1 and 2 years. Residual recession and defect coverage were assessed. RESULTS Mean residual root recession after root coverage with acellular dermal matrix allograft was 0.2 +/- 0.04 mm, with defect coverage of 95.9% +/- 0.9%. Frequency of defect coverage was 82.2%. Root coverage was 98.8% +/- 0.2%, resulting in a frequency of root coverage of 100%. Gain in keratinized gingiva was 2.2+/- 0.04 mm and attachment gain was 4.5+/- 0.1 mm per patient. Connective tissue autografts resulted in mean residual root recession of 0.1+/- 0.04 mm, with percent defect coverage of 97.8%+/- 0.6% and frequency of defect coverage of 95.4%. Root coverage was 99.1%+/- 0.2%, and frequency of root coverage was 100%. Gain in keratinized gingiva was 3.0+/- 0.1 mm and attachment gain was 5.3+/- 0.2 mm per patient. No significant differences in final recession and root coverage between the two treatment methods were found. However, autografts resulted in significant increases in defect coverage, keratinized gingival gain, attachment gain, and residual probing depth. The clinical results were stable for the 2-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that coverage of root by sub-pedicle acellular dermal matrix allografts or subepithelial connective tissue autografts is a very predictable procedure which is stable for 2 years postoperatively. However, subepithelial connective tissue autografts resulted in significant increases in defect coverage, keratinized gingival gain, attachment gain, and residual probing depth.