Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-3382(12)70025-8
DC FieldValue
dc.titleEsthetic soft tissue management for teeth and implants
dc.contributor.authorFu, J.-H.
dc.contributor.authorSu, C.-Y.
dc.contributor.authorWang, H.-L.
dc.date.accessioned2013-10-16T07:23:45Z
dc.date.available2013-10-16T07:23:45Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationFu, J.-H.,Su, C.-Y.,Wang, H.-L. (2012). Esthetic soft tissue management for teeth and implants. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice 12 (3 SUPPL.) : 129-142. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-3382(12)70025-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S1532-3382(12)70025-8</a>
dc.identifier.issn15323382
dc.identifier.urihttp://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/47138
dc.description.abstractContext. Can newly introduced graft materials be successfully used in soft tissue augmentation around teeth and dental implants? Evidence Acquisition. An electronic search on the PubMed database for English articles published before March 31, 2012, was performed using the following key words: "root coverage," "soft tissue graft," "periodontal plastic surgery," "subepithelial connective graft (SCTG)," "acellular dermal matrix (ADM)," "guided tissue regeneration based root coverage (GTRC)," "recession defects," "mucogingival defects," "collagen matrix," "living cellular construct (LCC)," "mucograft," and "biologic agents." Literature featuring new soft tissue graft materials, such as ADM, collagen matrix, GTRC, and biologic agents, were included. Evidence Synthesis. Data showed (1) allogeneic grafts were comparable to SCTG in terms of mean complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (RC), and mean amount of keratinized tissue (KT) gain; (2) xenogeneic collagen matrix was as comparable to SCTG in terms of mean amount of KT gain around teeth and dental implants but inferior in achieving RC; (3) GTRC was inferior to SCTG in terms of mean CRC and mean RC; (4) LCC was inferior to free gingival graft in terms of mean amount of KT gain but was superior in esthetics and patient satisfaction; and (5) adjunctive use of biologic agents did not exert a significant effect on mean CRC, mean RC, and mean amount of KT gain. Conclusions. Although these new materials do not surpass the gold standard (SCTG), they do provide improved patient satisfaction and esthetics, are available in abundance, and lead to reduced postoperative discomfort and surgical time. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.
dc.description.urihttp://libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1532-3382(12)70025-8
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectacellualr dermal matrix and guided tissue regeneration based root coverage
dc.subjectgingival recession
dc.subjectperiodontal plastic surgery
dc.subjectroot coverage
dc.subjectsubepithelial connective tissue graft
dc.subjecttissue engineering
dc.subjectTissue graft
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentDENTISTRY
dc.description.doi10.1016/S1532-3382(12)70025-8
dc.description.sourcetitleJournal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
dc.description.volume12
dc.description.issue3 SUPPL.
dc.description.page129-142
dc.identifier.isiutNOT_IN_WOS
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

23
checked on Aug 18, 2019

Page view(s)

92
checked on Aug 18, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.