Loading...
Publication
Substitutos de enxerto de tecido conjuntivo: Mucograft® vs Mucoderm®
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_31716 | 505.32 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivo: Revisão da literatura focada na comparação entre duas matrizes de colagénio de referência na Europa, Mucograft® e Mucoderm®. Análise dos resultados clínicos, com ênfase na percentagem de recobrimento radicular e no aumento de tecido queratinizado.
Métodos: Realizou-se uma pesquisa bibliográfica com recurso à base de dados PubMed. Foram estabelecidos critérios de inclusão e exclusão, tendo sido incluídos apenas estudos clínicos randomizados.
Resultados: Foram analisados dezoito estudos, nos quais foi descrito o aumento de tecido queratinizado e a redução de recessão gengival.
Conclusões: Face à ausência de estudos comparativos entre as duas matrizes, a literatura disponível relativa à matriz Mucoderm® não permite estabelecer conclusões face à matriz Mucograft®.
Objectives: Literature review focused on the comparison between two well-known collagen matrices in Europe, Mucograft® and Mucoderm®. Anaysis of clinical outcomes, focusing on root coverage percentage and augmentation of keratinized tissue. Methods: A bibliographical research in the PubMed database was performed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, being only included randomised clinical trials. Results: Eighteen studies were analysed, in which keratinized tissue augmentation and gingival recession reduction were presented. Conclusions: In the absence of studies comparing these two matrices, the remaining literature concerning the Mucoderm® matrix does not allow drawing any conclusions when comparing it with the Mucograft® matrix.
Objectives: Literature review focused on the comparison between two well-known collagen matrices in Europe, Mucograft® and Mucoderm®. Anaysis of clinical outcomes, focusing on root coverage percentage and augmentation of keratinized tissue. Methods: A bibliographical research in the PubMed database was performed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, being only included randomised clinical trials. Results: Eighteen studies were analysed, in which keratinized tissue augmentation and gingival recession reduction were presented. Conclusions: In the absence of studies comparing these two matrices, the remaining literature concerning the Mucoderm® matrix does not allow drawing any conclusions when comparing it with the Mucograft® matrix.
Description
Keywords
Matriz dérmica acelular Matriz de colagénio suína Substitutos de tecido conjuntivo Substitutos de tecidos moles Tecido queratinizado Recobrimento radicular Acellular dermal matrix Porcine collagen matrix Connective tissue graft substitutes Soft tissue substitutes Keratinized tissue Root coverage