Clinical Evaluation of Conventional Versus Microsurgical Techniques of Esthetic Crown Lengthening
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03804281|
Recruitment Status : Unknown
Verified January 2019 by Mohamed elshafie mohamed tawfiq hassan, Cairo University.
Recruitment status was: Not yet recruiting
First Posted : January 15, 2019
Last Update Posted : January 18, 2019
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Mohamed elshafie mohamed tawfiq hassan, Cairo University
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.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Gummy Smile||Procedure: Test group Procedure: Control group||Not Applicable|
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||24 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||Clinical Evaluation of Gingival Margin Stability Following Conventional Versus Microsurgical Techniques of Esthetic Crown Lengthening|
|Estimated Study Start Date :||February 1, 2019|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||January 1, 2020|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||August 1, 2020|
Experimental: Test group
esthetic crown lengthening with microsurgical approach
Procedure: Test group
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
Active Comparator: Control group
esthetic crown lengthening with conventional approach.
Procedure: Control group
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.
Primary Outcome Measures :
- Mid-buccal gingival margin level [ Time Frame: 6 months ]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
Secondary Outcome Measures :
- Pink Esthetic Score (PES) [ Time Frame: 6 months ]The PES is based on seven variables: mesial papilla, distal papilla, soft-tissue level, soft tissue contour, alveolar process deficiency, soft-tissue color and texture. Each variable shall be assessed with a 2-1-0 score, with 2 being the best and 0 being the poorest score. The mesial and distal papilla will be evaluated for completeness, incompleteness or absence
- Post-Surgical swelling [ Time Frame: 7days ]will be evaluated post-surgically with Verbal Rating Scale with words ranging from (absent-slight-moderate-intense) Absent (no swelling), Slight (intraoral swelling at the operated area), Moderate (moderate intraoral swelling at the operated area) and Intense (intensive extra oral swelling extending beyond the operated area).
- Post-Surgical Patient Satisfaction: 3-item questionnaire [ Time Frame: 6 months ]A 3-item questionnaire is asked and the patients shall use a 7-point answer scale
No Contacts or Locations Provided