Comparação do recobrimento radicular em recessões unitárias utilizando matriz colágena Mucograft® X enxerto autógeno: revisão de literatura
PDF

Palavras-chave

Retração gengival; Procedimento cirúrgicos bucais; Periodontia

Como Citar

Matos , F. G., de Moura , G. B., & de Campos , B. O. (2023). Comparação do recobrimento radicular em recessões unitárias utilizando matriz colágena Mucograft® X enxerto autógeno: revisão de literatura . Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences, 5(3), 1143–1157. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n3p1143-1157

Resumo

O tratamento de recessões gengivais além de proporcionar maior conforto ao paciente diminuindo a sensibilidade restabelece o posicionamento normal do tecido gengival melhorando a estética. Procedimentos cirúrgicos rápidos e com menor sintomatologia dolorosa seriam ideais na prática clínica para o recobrimento radicular. Dessa forma, biomateriais substitutos a enxertos autógenos estão cada vez mais sendo pesquisados. Assim, o objetivo deste estudo é verificar sob revisão da literatura científica atualizada, artigos clínicos que realizaram o recobrimento radicular em recessões dentais unitárias utilizando do Mucograft® comparativamente aos enxertos autógenos. Para isso, o termo Mucograft® foi utilizado para buscas no Pubmed e Google e 48 resultados foram obtidos. Desses, 9 artigos foram selecionados. 6 estudos avaliaram a porcentagem de recobrimento radicular, enquanto que 2 avaliaram o aumento da faixa de tecido queratinizado e 1 as mudanças histológicas. O uso de Mucograft® demonstrou resultados positivos em relação a capacidade de recobrimento radicular com boa estética e nível de dor pós operatória semelhante ao do obtido pelo enxerto autógeno. As evidências científicas demonstram que o a Matriz Mucograft® é um material promissor, mas comprovações com maior tempo de acompanhamento são necessárias para auxiliar o clínico nas suas escolhas.

https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2023v5n3p1143-1157
PDF

Referências

Amin, P. N., Bissada, N. F., Ricchetti, P. A., Silva, A. P. B., & Demko, C. A. (2018). Tuberosity versus palatal donor sites for soft tissue grafting: A split- mouth clinical study. Quintessence Int, 49(7), 589-598. 10.3290/j.qi.a40510

Aras D. K., Özkoçer, Ö., Uraz, A., Yalım, M. (2021). Efficacy of Collagen Matrix (Mucograft® and Mucoderm®) Versus Free Gingival Graft to Enhance the Width of Keratinized Tissue Around Implants. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 77-84.

Barakat, H., & Dayoub, S. (2020). Treatment of miller type I and II gingival recession defects using three-dimensional porcine collagen matrix with coronally advanced flap: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial (a 1-year follow-up). Indian J Dent Res, 31(2), 209-216. 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_897_18

Francesco Cairo , Michele Nieri, Sandro Cincinelli, Jana Mervelt, Umberto Pagliaro (2011). The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol, 38(7):661-6

Cairo, F. (2017). Periodontal plastic surgery of gingival recessions at single and multiple teeth. Periodontol 2000, 75(1), 296-316. 10.1111/prd.12186

Cardaropoli, D., Tamagnone, L., Roffredo, A., & Gaveglio, L. (2012). Treatment of gingival recession defects using coronally advanced flap with a porcine collagen matrix compared to coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol, 83(3), 321-328. 10.1902/jop.2011.110215

Caton, J. G., Armitage, G., Berglundh, T., Chapple, I. L. C., Jepsen, S., Kornman, K. S., . . . Tonetti, M. S. (2018). A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Clin Periodontol, 45 Suppl 20, S1-s8. 10.1111/jcpe.12935

Chambrone, L., Chambrone, D., Pustiglioni, F. E., Chambrone, L. A., & Lima, L. A. (2008). Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent, 36(9), 659-671. 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.007

Chevalier, G., Cherkaoui, S., Kruk, H., Bensaid, X., & Danan, M. (2017). Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix Versus Connective Tissue Graft: Case Series of Various Gingival Recession Treatments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 37(1), 117-123. 10.11607/prd.2536

Consensus report. Mucogingival therapy. (1996). Ann Periodontol, 1(1), 702-706. 10.1902/annals.1996.1.1.702

Cordeiro, A. M., Oliveira, G. M. d., Rentería, J. M., & Guimarães, C. A. (2007). Revisão sistemática: uma revisão narrativa. Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, 34.

Dominiak, M., Mierzwa-Dudek, D., Puzio, M., & Gedrange, T. (2012). Clinical evaluation of the effectiveness of using a collagen matrix (Mucograft®

prototype) in gingival recession coverage – a pilot study. Journal of Stomatology (Czasopismo Stomatologiczne), 65(2), 188-202. 10.5604/00114553.996480 Esposito, M., Coulthard, P., Thomsen, P., & Worthington, H. V. (2004). Enamel matrix derivative for periodontal tissue regeneration in treatment of intrabony defects: a Cochrane systematic review. J Dent Educ, 68(8), 834-844.

Fu, J. H., Su, C. Y., & Wang, H. L. (2012). Esthetic soft tissue management for teeth and implants. J Evid Based Dent Pract, 12(3 Suppl), 129-142. 10.1016/s1532-3382(12)70025-8

Ghanaati, S., Schlee, M., Webber, M. J., Willershausen, I., Barbeck, M., Balic, E., Kirkpatrick, C. J. (2011). Evaluation of the tissue reaction to a new bilayered collagen matrix in vivo and its translation to the clinic. Biomed Mater, 6(1), 015010. 10.1088/1748-6041/6/1/015010

Goyal, N., Gupta, R., Pandit, N., & Dahiya, P. (2014). Analysis of patient acceptance following treatment of Miller's class II gingival recession with acellular dermal matrix and connective tissue graft. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 18(3), 352-356. 10.4103/0972-124x.134574

Hirooka, H. (1998). The biologic concept for the use of enamel matrix protein: true periodontal regeneration. Quintessence Int, 29(10), 621-630.

Kassab, M. M., & Cohen, R. E. (2003). The etiology and prevalence of gingival recession. J Am Dent Assoc, 134(2), 220-225. 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0137

Langer, B., & Langer, L. (1985). Subepithelial connective tissue graft technique for root coverage. J Periodontol, 56(12), 715-720. 10.1902/jop.1985.56.12.715

Mathias-Santamaria, I. F., Silveira, C. A., Rossato, A., Sampaio de Melo, M. A., Bresciani, E., & Santamaria, M. P. (2022). Single gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesion treated by partial restoration and coronally advanced flap with or without xenogenous collagen matrix: A randomized clinical trial evaluating the coverage procedures and restorative protocol. J Periodontol, 93(4), 504-514. 10.1002/jper.21-0358

Menceva, Z., Dimitrovski, O., Popovska, M., Spasovski, S., Spirov, V., & Petrushevska, G. (2018). Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation. Open Access Maced J Med Sci, 6(4), 675-679. 10.3889/oamjms.2018.127

Moreira, A. R. O., Santamaria, M. P., Silvério, K. G., Casati, M. Z., Nociti Junior, F. H., Sculean, A., & Sallum, E. A. (2016). Coronally advanced flap with or without porcine collagen matrix for root coverage: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig, 20(9), 2539-2549. 10.1007/s00784-016-1757-8

Rokn, A., Zare, H., & Haddadi, P. (2020). Use of Mucograft Collagen Matrix(®) versus Free Gingival Graft to Augment Keratinized Tissue around Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Front Dent, 17(5), 1-8. 10.18502/fid.v17i1.3965

Sanz, M., Lorenzo, R., Aranda, J. J., Martin, C., & Orsini, M. (2009). Clinical evaluation of a new collagen matrix (Mucograft prototype) to enhance the width of keratinized tissue in patients with fixed prosthetic restorations: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol, 36(10), 868-876. 10.1111/j.1600- 051X.2009.01460.x

Schmitt, C. M., Moest, T., Lutz, R., Wehrhan, F., Neukam, F. W., & Schlegel, K. A. (2016). Long-term outcomes after vestibuloplasty with a porcine collagen matrix (Mucograft(®) ) versus the free gingival graft: a comparative prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res, 27(11), e125-e133. 10.1111/clr.12575

Stefanini, M., Marzadori, M., Aroca, S., Felice, P., Sangiorgi, M., & Zucchelli, G. (2018). Decision making in root-coverage procedures for the esthetic outcome. Periodontol 2000, 77(1), 54-64. 10.1111/prd.12205

Suárez-López Del Amo, F., Rodriguez, J. C., Asa'ad, F., & Wang, H. L. (2019). Comparison of two soft tissue substitutes for the treatment of gingival recession defects: an animal histological study. J Appl Oral Sci, 27, e20180584. 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0584

Tugnait, A., & Clerehugh, V. (2001). Gingival recession—its significance and management. Journal of Dentistry, 29(6), 381-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00035-5

Vignoletti, F., Nuñez, J., de Sanctis, F., Lopez, M., Caffesse, R., & Sanz, M. (2015). Healing of a xenogeneic collagen matrix for keratinized tissue augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res, 26(5), 545-552. 10.1111/clr.12441

Wennström, J., Lindhe, J., & Nyman, S. (1981). Role of keratinized gingiva for gingival health. Clinical and histologic study of normal and regenerated gingival tissue in dogs. J Clin Periodontol, 8(4), 311-328. 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1981.tb02041.x

Zucchelli, G., & Mounssif, I. (2015). Periodontal plastic surgery. Periodontol 2000, 68(1), 333-368. 10.1111/prd.12059

Zucchelli, G., Tavelli, L., McGuire, M. K., Rasperini, G., Feinberg, S. E., Wang, H. L., & Giannobile, W. V. (2020). Autogenous soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic surgical reconstruction. J Periodontol, 91(1), 9-16. 10.1002/jper.19-0350

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 Flávia Gomes Matos , Guilherme Bianchine de Moura , Bernardo Oliveira de Campos