Treatment of Iatrogenic Factor Related Gingival Recession: A Case Report

Abstract

Recent reports in the literature show that the application of coronally advanced flap i n c ombination with subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of Miller Class II and even III gingival recessions leads to successful results. This case report describes the use of subepithelial connective tissue graft and enamel matrix derivative combination with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of localized gingival recession caused by an ill-fitting crown restoration. The restorative treatment comprised of the retreatment of the endodontic and restorative needs. At 12 months, successful root coverage with 3.5 mm attachment gain was achieved. The patient had minimal discomfort and was satisfied with esthetic results. This case encourages the usage of subepithelial connective tissue graft, enamel matrix derivative and coronally advanced flap combination in localized Miller Class III gingival recessions. Even though the treatment of Miller Class III gingival recessions are challenging due to loss of interproximal bone and soft tissues, the application of subepithelial connective tissue graft in combination with the use ofenamel matrix derivative has shown to be a predictable treatment procedure in esthetic areas forroot coverage and gain of clinical attachment in single Miller Class III recession defects.

Keywords

• subepithelial connective tissue graft,Coronally advanced flap,enamel matrix derivative,Miller Class III gingival recession,root coverage esthetic score,subepithelial connective tissue graft

References

1. Baldi, C., Pini-Prato, G., Pagliaro, U., Nieri, M., Saletta, D., Muzzi, L., Cortellini, P. (1999). Coronally advanced flap procedure for root coverage. Is flap thickness a relevant predictor to achieve root coverage? A 19-case series. J Periodontol, 70(9), 1077–84.
2. Bennani, V., Ibrahim, H., Al-Harthi, L., Lyons, K.M. (2017). The periodontal restorative interface: esthetic considerations. Periodontol 2000, 74(1), 74–101.
3. Cairo, F., Rotundo, R., Miller, P. D., Pini, Prato, G. P. (2009). Root coverage esthetic score: a system to evaluate th.e esthetic outcome of the treatment of gingival recession through evaluation of clinical cases. J Periodontol, 80(4), 705-710.
4. Cairo, F. (2017). Periodontal plastic surgery of gingival recessions at single and multiple teeth. Periodontol 2000, 75(1), 296–316.
5. De Waal, H., Castellucci, G. (1994). The importance of restorative margin placement to the biologic width and periodontal health. Part II. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 14(1), 70–83.
6. Esteibar, J. R. V, Zorzano, L. A. A, Cundín, E. E, Blanco, J. D. M, Medina, J. R. O de G. (2011). Complete root coverage of Miller Class III recessions. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 31(4), e1-7.
7. Gracis, S., Fradeani, M., Celletti, R., Bracchetti, G. (2001). Biological integration of aesthetic restorations: factors influencing appearance and long-term success. Periodontol 2000, 27, 29–44.
8. Henriques, P. S. G, Pelegrine, A. A, Nogueira, A. A, Borghi, M. M. (2010). Application of subepithelial connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a split-mouth randomized study. J Oral Sci, 52(3), 463-471.

9. Mahajan, A., Dixit, J., Verma, U. P. (2007). A patient-centered clinical evaluation of acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of gingival recession defects. J Periodontol, 78(12), 2348-2355.
10. Miron, R. J., Sculean, A., Cochran, D. L., Froum, S., Zucchelli, G., Nemcovsky, C., Donos, N., Lyngstadaas, S. P., Deschner, J., Dard, M., Stavropoulos, A., Zhang, Y., Trombelli, L., Kasaj, A., Shirakata, Y., Cortellini, P., Tonetti, M., Rasperini, G., Jepsen, S., Bosshardt, D. D. (2016). Twenty years of enamel matrix derivative: the past, the present and the future. J Clin Periodontol, 43(8), 668-683.
11. Pini-Prato, G., Tinti, C., Vincenzi, G., Magnani, C., Coltellini, P., Clauser, C. (1992). Guided tissue regeneration versus mucogingival surgery in the treatment of human buccal gingival recession. J Periodontol, 63, 919-928.
12. Rasperini, G., Roccuzzo, M., Francetti, L., Acunzo, R., Consonni, D., Silvestri, M. (2011). Subepithelial connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recessions with and without enamel matrix derivative: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 31(2), 133-139.
13. Sculean, A., Cosgarea, R., Stähli, A., Katsaros, C., Arweiler, N. B., Miron, R. J., Deppe, H. (2016). Treatment of multiple adjacent maxillary Miller Class I, II, and III gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel, enamel matrix derivative, and subepithelial connective tissue graft: a report of 12 cases. Quintessence Int, 47(8), 653-659.
14. Shirakata, Y., Nakamura, T., Shinohara, Y., Hashiguchi, C., Takeuchi, N., Imafuji, T. (2018). Split-mouth evaluation of connective tissue graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for the treatment of isolated gingival recession defects in dogs. Clin Oral Investig, Dec 1. Doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2750-1.