4.5 Article

Effect of Surgical Defect Coverage on Cervical Dentin Hypersensitivity and Quality of Life

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 84, Issue 6, Pages 768-775

Publisher

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.120479

Keywords

Dentin sensitivity; esthetics; gingival recession; quality of life; surgery, plastic; tooth root

Funding

  1. Foundation for Research Support of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG, Minas Gerais, Brazil)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Root exposure due to gingival recession (OR) can cause cervical dentin hypersensitivity (CDH), which is characterized by tooth pain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of surgical defect coverage on CDH and quality of life in patients with GR. Methods: Twenty-five GRs in maxillary canines and premolars were treated with coronally positioned flap plus connective tissue graft. OR dimensions, amount of keratinized gingiva, and clinical attachment level were evaluated. CDH was assessed by thermal and evaporative stimuli. Quality of life was assessed by use of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire. All parameters were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. Results: Statistically significant reduction in CDH (P < 0.001), significant reduction in impact of oral health on quality of life (P < 0.001), and significant changes in periodontal parameters were observed after 3 months. Mean defect coverage of 67.90% was achieved, with full coverage in 11 cases. Percentage defect coverage showed no correlation with air blast-stimulated CDH (P = 0.256) or cold stimulus (P = 0.563). The OHIP-14 physical disability dimension was correlated with the amount of keratinized tissue (P = 0.010) and also with defect coverage (P = 0.035). Conclusions: Surgical defect coverage may reduce CDH and improve patient quality of life, by keratinized gingiva augmentation and impact on physical disability, irrespective of amount of defect coverage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available