Power tests to verify the homoscedasticity;. ⢠Statistical significance was set at an alpha level of Pâ¤0.05. PPF. OFD. Wound healing and follow-up periods were ...
Papilla preservation flap vs. open flap debridement in the aesthetic area: a preliminary study.
Presenting Author Stefano Gennai PhD student
Gennai S*., Bertelli L.**, Quiriconi G.**, Leonida A.*, Graziani F.** *Milano Bicocca University Dental School, Milan, Italy,**Section of Oral Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Introduction Periodontal therapy for the maxillary anterior area requires careful consideration, as aesthetic outcomes are just important as eradication of disease. Papilla preservation flap technique (PPF) is supposed to determine higher performance than the open flap debridement (OFD).
Aim
Study flowchart 65 patients Randomization
OFD group
PPF group
3 months evaluation
PPF
Outcomes • PPD; • clinical attachment level (CAL); • recession (REC); • number of sites with PPD>3mm. Statistical methods • Shapiro-Wilk test to verify Gaussian distributions; • Student's t-test for Gaussian distributions; • Mann-Whitney test for non-Gaussian; • Power tests to verify the homoscedasticity; • Statistical significance was set at an alpha level of P≤0.05.
Baseline REC PPF 0.99±0.69 OFD 1.07±0.82 P >0.5
3 months REC increase PPF 0.20±0.5 OFD 0.28±0.41 P 0.5
OFD
Materials and Methods
Esclusion criteria • Patient’s current smoking exceeding 20 cigarettes/day.
Baseline PPD PPF 3.13±0.71 OFD 2.95±0.44 P >0.5
3 months PPD reduction PPF 0.80±0.58 OFD 0.54±0.56 P 3 PPF 1.70±2.76 OFD 1.89±2.98 P >0.5
Conclusions Papilla preservation flap appears superior in terms of periodontal pocket reduction and gain of clinical attachment, nevertheless no differences are noted in terms of gingival recession. Further studies are required to investigate the performance of the access flaps according to the type of defect.
