A short-term and long-term comparison of root coverage with an acellular dermal matrix and a subepithelial graft

Obtaining predictable and esthetic root coverage has become important. Unfortunately, there is only a limited amount of information available on the long-term results of root coverage procedures. The goal of this study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term root coverage results obtained with an acellular dermal matrix and a subepithelial graft.

An a priori power analysis was done to determine that 25 was an adequate sample size for each group in this study. Twenty-five patients treated with either an acellular dermal matrix or a subepithelial graft for root coverage were included in this study. The short-term (mean 12.3 to 13.2 weeks) and long-term (mean 48.1 to 49.2 months) results were compared. Additionally, various factors were evaluated to determine whether they could affect the results. This study was a retrospective study of patients in a fee-for-service private periodontal practice. The patients were not randomly assigned to treatment groups.

The mean root coverages for the short-term acellular dermal matrix (93.4%), short-term subepithelial graft (96.6%), and long-term subepithelial graft (97.0%) were statistically similar. All three were statistically greater than the long-term acellular dermal matrix mean root coverage (65.8%). Similar results were noted in the change in recession. There were smaller probing reductions and less of an increase in keratinized tissue with the acellular dermal matrix than the subepithelial graft. None of the factors evaluated resulted in the acellular dermal graft having a statistically significant better result than the subepithelial graft. However, in long-term cases where multiple defects were treated with an acellular dermal matrix, the mean root coverage (70.8%) was greater than the mean root coverage in long-term cases where a single defect was treated with an acellular dermal matrix (50.0%).

The mean results with the subepithelial graft held up with time better than the mean results with an acellular dermal matrix. However, the results were not universal. In 32.0% of the cases treated with an acellular dermal matrix, the results improved or remained stable with time.