Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration: A review

Michael J. Danesh-Meyer, Ulf M E Wikesjö

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The last decade has seen an increasing number of clinical reports on guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. This article reviews the value of GTR in the management of gingival recession defects based on records from such reports. Studies and case-series using nonresorbable and bioresorbable membranes, studies comparing GTR to the subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure, and histologic reports of healing following GTR, published in the English language from 1985 to 2000, were identified using a Medline search and were included in the data-base for this review. The following pre-and post-treatment data were collated and evaluated for each of the reports: gingival recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and width of the keratinized gingiva. In perspective of the limitations of the studies reviewed, it has been shown that GTR may be used for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. Importantly, it has not been shown that GTR provides an added clinical benefit for the patient treatment planned for reconstruction of gingival recession defects, i.e. GTR does not appear to offer a significant advantage over mucogingival procedures such as the connective tissue graft or the advanced flap procedure. It is imperative to recognize inherent technical difficulties associated with GTR including primary wound closure and secondary membrane exposure; membrane exposures being negatively correlated to desired clinical outcomes. Also, membrane exposures appear consistently more common in smokers than in non-smokers. It is also imperative to recognize shortcomings and adverse effects including space maintenance and unacceptable foreign body reactions associated with some bioresorbable GTR technologies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)341-354
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Periodontal Research
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

Guided Tissue Regeneration
Gingival Recession
Membranes
Connective Tissue
Orthodontic Space Maintenance
Foreign-Body Reaction
Transplants
Gingiva
Language
Databases
Technology

Keywords

  • Clinical trials, review
  • Gingival recession
  • Gingival/connective tissue graft
  • Guided tissue regeneration
  • Mucogingival procedures
  • Periodontal surgery
  • Rotational/advanced flap procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Periodontics

Cite this

Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration : A review. / Danesh-Meyer, Michael J.; Wikesjö, Ulf M E.

In: Journal of Periodontal Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, 01.01.2001, p. 341-354.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Danesh-Meyer, Michael J. ; Wikesjö, Ulf M E. / Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration : A review. In: Journal of Periodontal Research. 2001 ; Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 341-354.
@article{7cb3659c88d843ef8247c2f5c0470b5e,
title = "Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration: A review",
abstract = "The last decade has seen an increasing number of clinical reports on guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. This article reviews the value of GTR in the management of gingival recession defects based on records from such reports. Studies and case-series using nonresorbable and bioresorbable membranes, studies comparing GTR to the subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure, and histologic reports of healing following GTR, published in the English language from 1985 to 2000, were identified using a Medline search and were included in the data-base for this review. The following pre-and post-treatment data were collated and evaluated for each of the reports: gingival recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and width of the keratinized gingiva. In perspective of the limitations of the studies reviewed, it has been shown that GTR may be used for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. Importantly, it has not been shown that GTR provides an added clinical benefit for the patient treatment planned for reconstruction of gingival recession defects, i.e. GTR does not appear to offer a significant advantage over mucogingival procedures such as the connective tissue graft or the advanced flap procedure. It is imperative to recognize inherent technical difficulties associated with GTR including primary wound closure and secondary membrane exposure; membrane exposures being negatively correlated to desired clinical outcomes. Also, membrane exposures appear consistently more common in smokers than in non-smokers. It is also imperative to recognize shortcomings and adverse effects including space maintenance and unacceptable foreign body reactions associated with some bioresorbable GTR technologies.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, review, Gingival recession, Gingival/connective tissue graft, Guided tissue regeneration, Mucogingival procedures, Periodontal surgery, Rotational/advanced flap procedures",
author = "Danesh-Meyer, {Michael J.} and Wikesj{\"o}, {Ulf M E}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1034/j.1600-0765.2001.360601.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "341--354",
journal = "Journal of Periodontal Research",
issn = "0022-3484",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Gingival recession defects and guided tissue regeneration

T2 - A review

AU - Danesh-Meyer, Michael J.

AU - Wikesjö, Ulf M E

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - The last decade has seen an increasing number of clinical reports on guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. This article reviews the value of GTR in the management of gingival recession defects based on records from such reports. Studies and case-series using nonresorbable and bioresorbable membranes, studies comparing GTR to the subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure, and histologic reports of healing following GTR, published in the English language from 1985 to 2000, were identified using a Medline search and were included in the data-base for this review. The following pre-and post-treatment data were collated and evaluated for each of the reports: gingival recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and width of the keratinized gingiva. In perspective of the limitations of the studies reviewed, it has been shown that GTR may be used for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. Importantly, it has not been shown that GTR provides an added clinical benefit for the patient treatment planned for reconstruction of gingival recession defects, i.e. GTR does not appear to offer a significant advantage over mucogingival procedures such as the connective tissue graft or the advanced flap procedure. It is imperative to recognize inherent technical difficulties associated with GTR including primary wound closure and secondary membrane exposure; membrane exposures being negatively correlated to desired clinical outcomes. Also, membrane exposures appear consistently more common in smokers than in non-smokers. It is also imperative to recognize shortcomings and adverse effects including space maintenance and unacceptable foreign body reactions associated with some bioresorbable GTR technologies.

AB - The last decade has seen an increasing number of clinical reports on guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. This article reviews the value of GTR in the management of gingival recession defects based on records from such reports. Studies and case-series using nonresorbable and bioresorbable membranes, studies comparing GTR to the subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure, and histologic reports of healing following GTR, published in the English language from 1985 to 2000, were identified using a Medline search and were included in the data-base for this review. The following pre-and post-treatment data were collated and evaluated for each of the reports: gingival recession depth, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and width of the keratinized gingiva. In perspective of the limitations of the studies reviewed, it has been shown that GTR may be used for reconstruction of gingival recession defects. Importantly, it has not been shown that GTR provides an added clinical benefit for the patient treatment planned for reconstruction of gingival recession defects, i.e. GTR does not appear to offer a significant advantage over mucogingival procedures such as the connective tissue graft or the advanced flap procedure. It is imperative to recognize inherent technical difficulties associated with GTR including primary wound closure and secondary membrane exposure; membrane exposures being negatively correlated to desired clinical outcomes. Also, membrane exposures appear consistently more common in smokers than in non-smokers. It is also imperative to recognize shortcomings and adverse effects including space maintenance and unacceptable foreign body reactions associated with some bioresorbable GTR technologies.

KW - Clinical trials, review

KW - Gingival recession

KW - Gingival/connective tissue graft

KW - Guided tissue regeneration

KW - Mucogingival procedures

KW - Periodontal surgery

KW - Rotational/advanced flap procedures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035655134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035655134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1034/j.1600-0765.2001.360601.x

DO - 10.1034/j.1600-0765.2001.360601.x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 11762869

AN - SCOPUS:0035655134

VL - 36

SP - 341

EP - 354

JO - Journal of Periodontal Research

JF - Journal of Periodontal Research

SN - 0022-3484

IS - 6

ER -