Gingival OvergrowthNCT01821157
Flapless Esthetic Crown Lengthening for the Treatment of Excessive Gingival Display
A study testing Open-flap and Flapless in people with Gingival Overgrowth, run by University of Guarulhos at 1 site in Brazil.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of open-flap (OF) and flapless (FL) esthetic crown lengthening (ECL) for the treatment of excessive gingival display (EGD). It was hypothesized that the FL surgery would yield similar clinical results to the OF technique up to 12 months. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 35 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Gingival Overgrowth
- What is being tested?
- Open-flap and Flapless
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 28 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBrazil
- Study dates
- Jan 2011to Jul 2012
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 to 35 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- esthetic concerns regarding excessive gingival display due to altered passive eruption in at least three upper teeth (incisors, lateral, canines or premolars) per half contralateral quadrant.
- > 21 years old,
- at least 20 teeth
- no sites with attachment loss and probing depth (PD) > 3 mm
- full-mouth plaque, bleeding on probing (BoP) and marginal bleeding (MB) index scores of < 15%
Who cannot join
- pregnancy
- lactation
- history of smoking
- antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory therapies in the previous 2 months
- previous mucogingival surgery at the region to be treated
- systemic conditions that could affect tissue healing (e.g. diabetes)
- use of orthodontic appliances
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Open-flap Versus Flapless Esthetic Crown Lengthening: 12-month Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of open-flap (OF) and flapless (FL) esthetic crown lengthening (ECL) for the treatment of excessive gingival display (EGD). It was hypothesized that the FL surgery would yield similar clinical results to the OF technique up to 12 months. Methods: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial will be conducted in 28 subjects presenting EGD. Contralateral quadrants will receive ECL using OF or FL techniques. Clinical parameters will be evaluated at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgeries. The local levels of receptor activator of NF-КB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) will be assessed by ELISA at baseline and 3 months. Patients' perceptions regarding morbidity and esthetical appearance will be also evaluated. Periodontal tissue dimensions will be obtained by computed tomography at baseline and correlated with the changes in the gingival margin (GM).
Read the detailed description
Experimental design and treatment protocols
In this prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical study, 28 subjects (21 - 40 years old) requiring correction of EGD will received ECL using OF and FL techniques. A computer-generated table randomly distributed the right quadrant to receive OF or FL techniques. Consequently, the contralateral left quadrant was allocated to the other group. The following treatments were performed:
OF (control group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): An internal beveled incision was performed at the buccal aspect of the involved teeth. Afterwards, a sulcular incision was completed to allow gingival tissue removal. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected to remove and remodel bone tissue by means of surgical chisels, as necessary, until a 3mm distance was achieved between the bone crest and the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). The exposed root surfaces were carefully planed with curettes. Interrupted sutures were performed at the papilla to allow GM stabilization in the CEJ position.
FL (test group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): Internal beveled and sulcular incisions and gingival tissue removal were performed as above described for the control group, replacing the GM in the CEJ position. However, the alveolar bone was removed and remodeled, as necessary, using micro chisels, via incisions, without flap elevation. The root surfaces were also carefully planed via incisions. The required distance of 3mm between the bone crest and the CEJ was checked by inserting a periodontal probe into the incision. Sutures were not performed.
After both procedures, canines and central incisors should be at the same length, and the lateral incisor should be 1mm shorter. The same periodontist (F.R.V.) performed all surgeries. Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash (0.12%) was prescribed 2x/day for 2 weeks. Analgesics were prescribed to control possible postoperative discomfort. The sutures of control quadrants were removed after 7 days. The surgical time for test and control, starting after anesthesia, was computed.
Examiner calibration
Clinical examinations were performed by one trained examiner (D.H.), calibrated as previously described13. The intra-examiner variability was 0.16 mm for PD and 0.18 mm for CAL. The parameters registered dichotomously (e.g. BoP) were calculated by the Kappa-Light test and the intra-examiner agreement was > 0.85.
Clinical monitoring
Periodontal measurements were performed using a manual probe . An individual stent of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer was used as a reference point for some clinical parameters. Grooves were drilled in the stent to standardize the localization and direction of the probe. The following parameters were assessed on the mesio-buccal, middle-buccal and disto-buccal aspect of all included teeth at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgeries: plaque accumulation (PI)12; MB: bleeding up to 15 seconds after probing along GM; BoP: bleeding up to 15 seconds after probing, at least 1 min following MB recording; PD: distance between the GM and the bottom of the gingival sulcus; Relative GM (rGM): distance from a fixed landmark in the stent to the most cervical point of the GM; Relative CAL (rCAL): distance from a fixed landmark in the stent to the bottom of the gingival sulcus; Keratinized gingiva height (KGH): distance from the GM to the mucogingival line. rGM was also assessed immediately after surgery.
The relative bone level (rBL, i.e. the distance between a fixed landmark in the stent and the bone crest [BC]) was recorded before and after the surgical procedures.
Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
To evaluate the effects of surgeries on alveolar bone remodeling, the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) levels of receptor activator of NF-КB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were assessed. One site from each quadrant was randomly chosen for GCF sampling at baseline and at 3 months post-surgeries. The GCF sampling protocol and volume measurement were performed as previously described14. The strips were stored at -80ºC for subsequent assays. GCF samples were analyzed by ELISA for soluble RANKL (sRANKL) and OPG using commercially available ELISA kits , according to the manufacturer's recommendations14. Results were reported as total amount (pg) and concentration (pg/µl of GCF) of protein.
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)
To evaluate the hard and soft tissues of the buccal periodontal apparatus, a soft tissue CBCT (ST-CBCT) was performed as previously described15. At baseline, the CBCT scans were taken with an iCATǁ and the images (sections of 1.0 mm apart) were acquired using suitable software. Briefly, the individuals were submitted to a regular CBCT scan, wearing a plastic lip retractor in an inverted position and retracting their tongues toward the floor of the mouth. These procedures prevented the interference of the soft tissues of the lips, cheeks and tongue in the gingival tissue. The following measurements were obtained in the buccal aspect of the middle image section of each tooth with a digital caliper rule: bone thickness (BT, the width of the buccal bone at a distance of 3 mm apical to the bone crest), CEJ to BC distance (CEJ-BC), gingival thickness (GT, the width of the buccal gingival tissue at a distance of 3 mm apical to the bone crest), GM to BC distance (GM-BC) and CEJ to GM distance (CEJ-GM).
Patient perceptions
Patient perceptions regarding morbidity and esthetic satisfaction were evaluated with a questionnaire administered by an assistant (TSM). The questionnaire was obtained upon completion of the procedure (pain) and at 7 days (pain/discomfort, swelling, hematoma, esthetical appearance) and 6 months post-surgery (esthetical appearance). Responses were quantified with a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 100 mm in which 0 indicated 'no' and 100 'plenty.' In addition, at 7 days and 6 months post-surgery, a questionnaire recorded patient satisfaction regarding the type of treatment, in terms of esthetical appearance by selecting one of the following choices: totally satisfied, partially satisfied or unsatisfied.
Statistical Analysis
To validate the clinical comparisons of this paper, a post hoc power calculation was performed based on differences of 0.5mm in GM between groups at 12 months post-surgery. Since there is no previous study comparing OF and FL techniques, we established that a difference of 0.5mm in GM between both approaches could be a relevant clinical parameter to perform the power size calculation. In addition, a standard deviation (SD) of 0.5 mm was determined based on the observed SD of the difference in GM changes between groups at 12 months, considering all buccal sites (interproximal- plus middle-buccal sites). Based on these data, it was determined that 16 subjects per group would be necessary to provide an 80% power with an alpha of 0.05. Since 28 subjects met the inclusion criteria, these were all included in the study. The power calculation took into account the split-mouth design16.
Data were examined for normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The data that did not achieve normality were analyzed using non-parametric methods. The mean percentage of sites with visible plaque accumulation, MB, BoP and the mean PD, rGM, rCAL, KGH and rBL were computed, separately, for interproximal- and middle-buccal sites of control and test sides. Interproximal sites included the mean of mesio- and disto-buccal measurements. The changes in the rGM from baseline to immediately after surgery, 3, 6 and 12 months and in rBL from baseline to immediately after surgery were calculated for both groups. Clinical differences between groups were compared using the paired Student's t-test. Repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey test were employed to detect differences within each group among time-points. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate VAS scores of patient's perceptions. The satisfaction in terms of esthetical appearance was compared by the χ2test. RANKL and OPG differences between groups and time-points were compared using the Wilcoxon test.
A model of multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was performed to estimate the association between the dimensions of the soft and bone tissues obtained by ST-CBCT, the treatment modalities and the changes in the GM. The outcome variable in this model was the nonappearance of creeping attachment of the GM in a coronal direction, at 12 months, from the position defined immediately after surgery (yes/no). The predictor variables included the surgical modalities and the tomography measurements. The level of significance was set at 5% for all analyses.
- Conditions
- Gingival Overgrowth
- Being tested
- Open-flap, Flapless
- Keywords
- crown lengthening, gingivoplasty, surgical procedures, gingivectomy, esthetic surgery
- Medical subject headings
- Gingival Overgrowth
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Open-flapProcedure or surgery
Open-flap(control group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): An internal beveled incision was performed at the buccal aspect of the involved teeth. Afterwards, a sulcular incision was completed to allow gingival tissue removal. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected to remove and remodel bone tissue by means of surgical chisels, as necessary, until a 3mm distance was achieved between the bone crest and the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). The exposed root surfaces were carefully planed with curettes. Interrupted sutures were performed at the papilla to allow GM stabilization in the CEJ position.
FlaplessProcedure or surgery
FL (test group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): Internal beveled and sulcular incisions and gingival tissue removal were performed as above described for the control group, replacing the GM in the CEJ position. However, the alveolar bone was removed and remodeled, as necessary, using micro chisels, via incisions, without flap elevation. The root surfaces were also carefully planed via incisions. The required distance of 3mm between the bone crest and the CEJ was checked by inserting a periodontal probe into the incision. Sutures were not performed.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Flapless | Active comparator | Flapless: Gingivectomy and osteoplasty, as necessary, will be performed without flap elevation. Receives: Procedure: Flapless |
| Open-flap | Active comparator | Gingivectomy and osteoplasty, as necessary, will be performed with flap elevation Receives: Procedure: Open-flap |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mean changes in gingival margin
Measured: Baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months
Secondary outcomes (9)
Visible plaque accumulation
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Marginal bleeding
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Bleeding on probing
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Probing depth
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Clinical attachment level
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Keratinized gingiva height
Measured: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Patient perceptions
Measured: Baseline, 7 days and 6 months
RANKL levels
Measured: Baseline and 3 months
OPG levels
Measured: Baseline and 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Mar 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2011
- Primary completionJul 2012
- Study completionJul 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Gingival OvergrowthStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Guarulhos
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Poliana Mendes Duarte, University of Guarulhos
- Investigators
- Poliana M Duarte, DDS, Principal investigator, Guarulhos University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01821157
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SISNEP/611
- Other IDs
- 209/2010
- Status last verified
- Mar 2013
- First submitted
- 26 Mar 2013
- Last updated
- 2 Apr 2013
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Levine RA, McGuire M. The diagnosis and treatment of the gummy smile. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 Aug;18(8):757-62, 764; quiz 766.
PubMed 9533335Silberberg N, Goldstein M, Smidt A. Excessive gingival display--etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities. Quintessence Int. 2009 Nov-Dec;40(10):809-18.
PubMed 19898712Rossi R, Benedetti R, Santos-Morales RI. Treatment of altered passive eruption: periodontal plastic surgery of the dentogingival junction. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008 Autumn;3(3):212-23.
PubMed 19655539Rethman MP, Harrel SK. Minimally invasive periodontal therapy: will periodontal therapy remain a technologic laggard? J Periodontol. 2010 Oct;81(10):1390-5. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100150.
PubMed 20476885Malkinson S, Waldrop TC, Gunsolley JC, Lanning SK, Sabatini R. The effect of esthetic crown lengthening on perceptions of a patient's attractiveness, friendliness, trustworthiness, intelligence, and self-confidence. J Periodontol. 2013 Aug;84(8):1126-33. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.120403. Epub 2012 Nov 9.
PubMed 23137007
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Apr 2013. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Open-flap Versus Flapless Esthetic Crown Lengthening: 12-month Clinical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01821157
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SISNEP/611
- Conditions
- Gingival Overgrowth
- Keywords
- crown lengthening, gingivoplasty, surgical procedures, gingivectomy, esthetic surgery
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 28 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of GuarulhosUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2011
- Primary completion
- Jul 2012 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Mar 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of open-flap (OF) and flapless (FL) esthetic crown lengthening (ECL) for the treatment of excessive gingival display (EGD). It was hypothesized that the FL surgery would yield similar clinical results to the OF technique up to 12 months. Methods: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial will be conducted in 28 subjects presenting EGD. Contralateral quadrants will receive ECL using OF or FL techniques. Clinical parameters will be evaluated at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgeries. The local levels of receptor activator of NF-КB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) will be assessed by ELISA at baseline and 3 months. Patients' perceptions regarding morbidity and esthetical appearance will be also evaluated. Periodontal tissue dimensions will be obtained by computed tomography at baseline and correlated with the changes in the gingival margin (GM).
Detailed description
Experimental design and treatment protocols
In this prospective, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical study, 28 subjects (21 - 40 years old) requiring correction of EGD will received ECL using OF and FL techniques. A computer-generated table randomly distributed the right quadrant to receive OF or FL techniques. Consequently, the contralateral left quadrant was allocated to the other group. The following treatments were performed:
OF (control group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): An internal beveled incision was performed at the buccal aspect of the involved teeth. Afterwards, a sulcular incision was completed to allow gingival tissue removal. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected to remove and remodel bone tissue by means of surgical chisels, as necessary, until a 3mm distance was achieved between the bone crest and the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). The exposed root surfaces were carefully planed with curettes. Interrupted sutures were performed at the papilla to allow GM stabilization in the CEJ position.
FL (test group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): Internal beveled and sulcular incisions and gingival tissue removal were performed as above described for the control group, replacing the GM in the CEJ position. However, the alveolar bone was removed and remodeled, as necessary, using micro chisels, via incisions, without flap elevation. The root surfaces were also carefully planed via incisions. The required distance of 3mm between the bone crest and the CEJ was checked by inserting a periodontal probe into the incision. Sutures were not performed.
After both procedures, canines and central incisors should be at the same length, and the lateral incisor should be 1mm shorter. The same periodontist (F.R.V.) performed all surgeries. Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash (0.12%) was prescribed 2x/day for 2 weeks. Analgesics were prescribed to control possible postoperative discomfort. The sutures of control quadrants were removed after 7 days. The surgical time for test and control, starting after anesthesia, was computed.
Examiner calibration
Clinical examinations were performed by one trained examiner (D.H.), calibrated as previously described13. The intra-examiner variability was 0.16 mm for PD and 0.18 mm for CAL. The parameters registered dichotomously (e.g. BoP) were calculated by the Kappa-Light test and the intra-examiner agreement was > 0.85.
Clinical monitoring
Periodontal measurements were performed using a manual probe . An individual stent of ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer was used as a reference point for some clinical parameters. Grooves were drilled in the stent to standardize the localization and direction of the probe. The following parameters were assessed on the mesio-buccal, middle-buccal and disto-buccal aspect of all included teeth at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgeries: plaque accumulation (PI)12; MB: bleeding up to 15 seconds after probing along GM; BoP: bleeding up to 15 seconds after probing, at least 1 min following MB recording; PD: distance between the GM and the bottom of the gingival sulcus; Relative GM (rGM): distance from a fixed landmark in the stent to the most cervical point of the GM; Relative CAL (rCAL): distance from a fixed landmark in the stent to the bottom of the gingival sulcus; Keratinized gingiva height (KGH): distance from the GM to the mucogingival line. rGM was also assessed immediately after surgery.
The relative bone level (rBL, i.e. the distance between a fixed landmark in the stent and the bone crest [BC]) was recorded before and after the surgical procedures.
Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)
To evaluate the effects of surgeries on alveolar bone remodeling, the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) levels of receptor activator of NF-КB ligand (RANKL) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were assessed. One site from each quadrant was randomly chosen for GCF sampling at baseline and at 3 months post-surgeries. The GCF sampling protocol and volume measurement were performed as previously described14. The strips were stored at -80ºC for subsequent assays. GCF samples were analyzed by ELISA for soluble RANKL (sRANKL) and OPG using commercially available ELISA kits , according to the manufacturer's recommendations14. Results were reported as total amount (pg) and concentration (pg/µl of GCF) of protein.
Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)
To evaluate the hard and soft tissues of the buccal periodontal apparatus, a soft tissue CBCT (ST-CBCT) was performed as previously described15. At baseline, the CBCT scans were taken with an iCATǁ and the images (sections of 1.0 mm apart) were acquired using suitable software. Briefly, the individuals were submitted to a regular CBCT scan, wearing a plastic lip retractor in an inverted position and retracting their tongues toward the floor of the mouth. These procedures prevented the interference of the soft tissues of the lips, cheeks and tongue in the gingival tissue. The following measurements were obtained in the buccal aspect of the middle image section of each tooth with a digital caliper rule: bone thickness (BT, the width of the buccal bone at a distance of 3 mm apical to the bone crest), CEJ to BC distance (CEJ-BC), gingival thickness (GT, the width of the buccal gingival tissue at a distance of 3 mm apical to the bone crest), GM to BC distance (GM-BC) and CEJ to GM distance (CEJ-GM).
Patient perceptions
Patient perceptions regarding morbidity and esthetic satisfaction were evaluated with a questionnaire administered by an assistant (TSM). The questionnaire was obtained upon completion of the procedure (pain) and at 7 days (pain/discomfort, swelling, hematoma, esthetical appearance) and 6 months post-surgery (esthetical appearance). Responses were quantified with a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 100 mm in which 0 indicated 'no' and 100 'plenty.' In addition, at 7 days and 6 months post-surgery, a questionnaire recorded patient satisfaction regarding the type of treatment, in terms of esthetical appearance by selecting one of the following choices: totally satisfied, partially satisfied or unsatisfied.
Statistical Analysis
To validate the clinical comparisons of this paper, a post hoc power calculation was performed based on differences of 0.5mm in GM between groups at 12 months post-surgery. Since there is no previous study comparing OF and FL techniques, we established that a difference of 0.5mm in GM between both approaches could be a relevant clinical parameter to perform the power size calculation. In addition, a standard deviation (SD) of 0.5 mm was determined based on the observed SD of the difference in GM changes between groups at 12 months, considering all buccal sites (interproximal- plus middle-buccal sites). Based on these data, it was determined that 16 subjects per group would be necessary to provide an 80% power with an alpha of 0.05. Since 28 subjects met the inclusion criteria, these were all included in the study. The power calculation took into account the split-mouth design16.
Data were examined for normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test. The data that did not achieve normality were analyzed using non-parametric methods. The mean percentage of sites with visible plaque accumulation, MB, BoP and the mean PD, rGM, rCAL, KGH and rBL were computed, separately, for interproximal- and middle-buccal sites of control and test sides. Interproximal sites included the mean of mesio- and disto-buccal measurements. The changes in the rGM from baseline to immediately after surgery, 3, 6 and 12 months and in rBL from baseline to immediately after surgery were calculated for both groups. Clinical differences between groups were compared using the paired Student's t-test. Repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey test were employed to detect differences within each group among time-points. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate VAS scores of patient's perceptions. The satisfaction in terms of esthetical appearance was compared by the χ2test. RANKL and OPG differences between groups and time-points were compared using the Wilcoxon test.
A model of multiple linear regression (MLR) analysis was performed to estimate the association between the dimensions of the soft and bone tissues obtained by ST-CBCT, the treatment modalities and the changes in the GM. The outcome variable in this model was the nonappearance of creeping attachment of the GM in a coronal direction, at 12 months, from the position defined immediately after surgery (yes/no). The predictor variables included the surgical modalities and the tomography measurements. The level of significance was set at 5% for all analyses.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Flapless | Active comparator | Procedure: FlaplessFlapless: Gingivectomy and osteoplasty, as necessary, will be performed without flap elevation. |
| Open-flap | Active comparator | Procedure: Open-flapGingivectomy and osteoplasty, as necessary, will be performed with flap elevation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 35 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- esthetic concerns regarding excessive gingival display due to altered passive eruption in at least three upper teeth (incisors, lateral, canines or premolars) per half contralateral quadrant.
- > 21 years old,
- at least 20 teeth
- no sites with attachment loss and probing depth (PD) > 3 mm
- full-mouth plaque, bleeding on probing (BoP) and marginal bleeding (MB) index scores of < 15%
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- pregnancy
- lactation
- history of smoking
- antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory therapies in the previous 2 months
- previous mucogingival surgery at the region to be treated
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Open-flapOpen-flap(control group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): An internal beveled incision was performed at the buccal aspect of the involved teeth. Afterwards, a sulcular incision was completed to allow gingival tissue removal. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap was reflected to remove and remodel bone tissue by means of surgical chisels, as necessary, until a 3mm distance was achieved between the bone crest and the cement-enamel junction (CEJ). The exposed root surfaces were carefully planed with curettes. Interrupted sutures were performed at the papilla to allow GM stabilization in the CEJ position. | Procedure or surgery | Open-flap |
| FlaplessFL (test group; n=28 sides/105 teeth): Internal beveled and sulcular incisions and gingival tissue removal were performed as above described for the control group, replacing the GM in the CEJ position. However, the alveolar bone was removed and remodeled, as necessary, using micro chisels, via incisions, without flap elevation. The root surfaces were also carefully planed via incisions. The required distance of 3mm between the bone crest and the CEJ was checked by inserting a periodontal probe into the incision. Sutures were not performed. | Procedure or surgery | Flapless |
Primary outcome
Mean changes in gingival margin
Time frame: Baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months
9 secondary outcomes
Visible plaque accumulation
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Marginal bleeding
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Bleeding on probing
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Probing depth
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Clinical attachment level
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Keratinized gingiva height
Time frame: Baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months
Patient perceptions
Time frame: Baseline, 7 days and 6 months
RANKL levels
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
OPG levels
Time frame: Baseline and 3 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Apr 2013.
- Background: PubMed 9533335Levine RA, McGuire M. The diagnosis and treatment of the gummy smile. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1997 Aug;18(8):757-62, 764; quiz 766.
- Background: PubMed 19898712Silberberg N, Goldstein M, Smidt A. Excessive gingival display--etiology, diagnosis, and treatment modalities. Quintessence Int. 2009 Nov-Dec;40(10):809-18.
- Background: PubMed 19655539Rossi R, Benedetti R, Santos-Morales RI. Treatment of altered passive eruption: periodontal plastic surgery of the dentogingival junction. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008 Autumn;3(3):212-23.
- Background: PubMed 20476885Rethman MP, Harrel SK. Minimally invasive periodontal therapy: will periodontal therapy remain a technologic laggard? J Periodontol. 2010 Oct;81(10):1390-5. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.100150.
- Background: PubMed 23137007Malkinson S, Waldrop TC, Gunsolley JC, Lanning SK, Sabatini R. The effect of esthetic crown lengthening on perceptions of a patient's attractiveness, friendliness, trustworthiness, intelligence, and self-confidence. J Periodontol. 2013 Aug;84(8):1126-33. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.120403. Epub 2012 Nov 9.
Related trials for Gingival Overgrowth
Enrolling by invitationEarly Phase 1
Testing the Efficacy of Photobiomodulation Therapy and Hyaluronic Acid Gel on Post-surgical Healing After Gingivectomy
Gingival Hyperplasia, Gingival Hypertrophy
Recruiting
The Effect of Ozone Therapy on Gingivoplasty
Gingival Enlargement
Recruiting
Periodontal Plastic Reconstruction of Soft Tissue Dehiscences After the Removal of Localized Gingival Enlargements
Localized Gingival Enlargement, Epulides
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Poliana M Duarte, DDS principal investigator
Guarulhos University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Open-flap and Flapless in people with Gingival Overgrowth, run by University of Guarulhos at 1 site in Brazil.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Apr 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Brazil. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mean changes in gingival margin (time frame: Baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01821157, which also lists 5 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Apr 2013.