Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Journal of Periodont...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Journal of Periodontology
Article . 2011 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Living Cellular Construct for Increasing the Width of Keratinized Gingiva: Results From a Randomized, Within‐Patient, Controlled Trial

Authors: McGuire, Michael K.; Scheyer, E. Todd; Nevins, Marc L.; Neiva, Rodrigo; Cochran, David L.; Mellonig, James T.; Giannobile, William V.; +1 Authors

Living Cellular Construct for Increasing the Width of Keratinized Gingiva: Results From a Randomized, Within‐Patient, Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: The standard of care for increasing keratinized gingiva adjacent to teeth that do not require root coverage is the free gingival graft (FGG). A pilot study indicated that the use of a living cellular construct (LCC) could be effective in this clinical scenario.Methods: A pivotal, multicenter, randomized, within‐patient, controlled, open‐label trial was conducted (N = 96 patients). After removing the mucosa and keratinized gingiva from the test site, either an LCC or FGG was applied. The primary efficacy endpoint was the ability of the LCC to regenerate ≥2 mm keratinized gingiva at 6 months. Secondary measures were the same color and texture as the adjacent tissue, a 1‐mm width of keratinized gingiva at 6 months, patient treatment preference, surgical site sensitivity at 1 week, and patient‐reported pain after 3 days. Safety was assessed by reports of adverse events.Results: At 6 months, the LCC regenerated ≥2 mm of keratinized gingiva in 95.3% of patients (81 of 85 patients; P <0.001 versus a 50% predefined standard). As expected, the FGG generated more keratinized gingiva than the LCC (4.57 ± 1.0 mm versus 3.2 ± 1.1 mm, respectively). The gingiva regenerated with the LCC matched the color and texture of the adjacent gingiva. All patients achieved ≥1 mm keratinized gingiva with the LCC treatment by 6 months, and more patients preferred treatment with the LCC than with the FGG. No difference in sensitivity or pain was noted between the treatments. The treatments were well tolerated, and reported adverse events were typical for this type of periodontal surgery.Conclusion: The use of an LCC may provide a safe and effective therapy for augmenting the zone of keratinized gingiva.

Country
United States
Keywords

Adult, Keratinocytes, Male, Gingiva, regenerative medicine, wound healing, Gingival recession, Health Sciences, Humans, Regeneration, Gingival Recession, Prospective Studies, Growth Substances, Aged, Gingivoplasty, Pigmentation, Patient Preference, Fibroblasts, Middle Aged, Intention to Treat Analysis, Dentistry, mouth mucosa, Female, Collagen, Patient Safety, periodontal diseases, oral surgery, Follow-Up Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    64
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
64
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
bronze