| Cheng YF |
------>authors3_c= ------>paper_class1=1 ------>Impact_Factor=2.472 ------>paper_class3=2 ------>paper_class2=1 ------>vol=42 ------>confirm_bywho=seanlee ------>insert_bywho=jackson ------>Jurnal_Rank=12.2 ------>authors4_c= ------>comm_author=1 ------>patent_EDate=None ------>authors5_c= ------>publish_day=23 ------>paper_class2Letter=None ------>page2=485 ------>medlineContent= ------>unit=F0100 ------>insert_date=20070119 ------>iam=4 ------>update_date=None ------>author=??? ------>change_event=4 ------>ISSN= ------>authors_c= ------>score=434 ------>journal_name=Journal of Periodontal Research ------>paper_name=Is Coronally Positioned Flap Procedure adjunct with Enamel Matrix Derivative or Root Conditioning a Relevant Predictor for Achieving Root Coverage ------>confirm_date=20071108 ------>tch_id=076001 ------>pmid=17760826 ------>page1=474 ------>fullAbstract=BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study is a systemic review of coronally positioned flap, coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning, or coronally positioned flap+enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recession. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All studies available through the Medline database by the end of October 2005 were used. Each study provided mean clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue, probing pocket depth, gingival recession depth and root coverage percentage before and after treatment with coronally positioned flap alone, coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning, or coronally positioned flap+EMD. Effectiveness was evaluated by comparing the weighted mean average in gingival recession depth, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue and root coverage percentage achieved with the three treatments. RESULTS: Seven studies for the coronally positioned flap+EMD group, four studies for the coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning group, and seven studies for the coronally positioned flap group were retrieved for this weighted mean analysis. The results of clinical attachment level, gingival recession depth, and root coverage percentage in the coronally positioned flap+EMD group were statistically significantly better than the changes in the coronally positioned flap and coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning group at 6 and 12 mo (p<0.001). There was no significant difference at the 6-mo comparison among clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue, probing pocket depth, and gingival recession depth, except in the root coverage percentage for coronally positioned flap and coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning groups. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that root coverage by the coronally positioned flap and coronally positioned flap+chemical root surface conditioning procedures were unpredictable but became more predictable when the coronally positioned flap procedure was improved by the modification of adding EMD. ------>tmu_sno=None ------>sno=14678 ------>authors2=Chen JW ------>authors3=Lin SJ ------>authors4=Lu HK ------>authors5= ------>authors6= ------>authors6_c= ------>authors=Cheng YF ------>delete_flag=0 ------>SCI_JNo=None ------>authors2_c= ------>publish_area=0 ------>updateTitle=Is coronally positioned flap procedure adjunct with enamel matrix derivative or root conditioning a relevant predictor for achieving root coverage? A systemic review. ------>language=2 ------>check_flag=None ------>submit_date=None ------>country=None ------>no= ------>patent_SDate=None ------>update_bywho=None ------>publish_year=2007 ------>submit_flag=None ------>publish_month=10 |