Clinical Evaluation of Conventional Versus Microsurgical Techniques of Esthetic Crown Lengthening

NCT03804281 | Unknown DMC

• 1 other identifier: Dentaris192018
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 24
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

Brief Summary

the study compare gingival margin stability following conventional approach versus microsurgical approach of esthetic crown lengthening in management of patients with short clinical crowns in the upper anterior region.In management of patients with short clinical crowns in the upper anterior region, there is no difference in gingival margin stability between conventional and microsurgical approaches of esthetic crown lengthening.

Conditions

Gummy Smile

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Mid-buccal gingival margin level

  periodontal probe with William's graduation will be used to measure the distance from the CEJ to the gingival margin at the mid-buccal surface

  6 months

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Pink Esthetic Score (PES)

  6 months

• Post-Surgical swelling

  7days

• Post-Surgical Patient Satisfaction: 3-item questionnaire

  6 months

Study Arms (2)

Test group

EXPERIMENTAL

esthetic crown lengthening with microsurgical approach

Procedure: Test group

Control group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

esthetic crown lengthening with conventional approach.

Procedure: Control group

Interventions

Test group PROCEDURE

The surgery will be done with the use of 4x magnification loop, the knives are micro blades and micro-sutures 7//0 used with the microsurgical instruments kit

Test group

Control group PROCEDURE

esthetic crown lengthening with conventional approach with an internal bevel incision, following CEJ anatomy, this will be followed by an intra-sulcular incision, removal of the strip of outlined marginal gingiva and elevation of a mucoperiosteal flap to the level of the alveolar bone crest.

Control group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Patients with healthy systemic condition.
• Adult patients ˃ 18 years old.
• The presence of the six upper anterior teeth.
• Absence of sites with attachment loss and probing depth (PD) \>3 mm
• Keratinized gingiva of at least 2mm width.
• Compliance with good oral hygiene.
• Patients accepts 6-months follow-up period (cooperative patients).
• Patients provides an informed consent

You may not qualify if:

• Gummy smile with normal tooth proportions
• Presence of prosthetic crowns
• Extensive restorations
• Extensive incisal edge attrition.
• Misalignment on maxillary anterior teeth.
• Smokers ˃ 10 cigarettes / day.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Cairo University: lead

MeSH Terms

Interventions

Control Groups

Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Epidemiologic Research Design; Epidemiologic Methods; Investigative Techniques; Research Design; Methods

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: TREATMENT
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Dentist

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: January 11, 2019
• First Posted: January 15, 2019
• Study Start: February 1, 2019
• Primary Completion: January 1, 2020
• Study Completion: August 1, 2020
• Last Updated: January 18, 2019

Record last verified: 2019-01