Abstract
The base of systematic reviews available for gingival recession treatment the use of CAF alone or in association with allogeneic, xenogeneic, or alloplastic biomaterials (e.g., matrix grafts or enamel matrix derivative) has been described as being less painful and more comfortable, due to the need of only one surgical site [1–7]. Conversely, it has been demonstrated that use of SCTG, FGG, and nonabsorbable membranes has been associated with increased morbidity and some complications, such as postoperative pain, bleeding and swelling during the early phase of healing (Fig. 4.1a–c), and membrane exposure/contamination [1–7].
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Evidence-Based Periodontal and Peri-Implant Plastic Surgery |
Subtitle of host publication | A Clinical Roadmap from Function to Aesthetics |
Publisher | Springer International Publishing |
Pages | 147-173 |
Number of pages | 27 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9783319139753 |
ISBN (Print) | 9783319139746 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Jan 2015 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Autogenous Graft
- Clinical Attachment Level
- Enamel Matrix Derivative
- Gingival Recession
- Root Coverage