Open-flap versus minimally invasive esthetic crown lengthening: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Esthetic crown lengthening is often performed to address excessive gingival display due to altered passive eruption. When bone reduction is required, most surgeons approach this procedure with an open flap approach. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the ou...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Blake Crosby (Author), Mira Ghaly (Author), Gregory Griffin (Author), Brittany Ange (Author), Ahmed R El-Awady (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Elsevier, 2023-06-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_35a76acb51c846ed8e76d8f29d5ab6a2
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Blake Crosby  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Mira Ghaly  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Gregory Griffin  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Brittany Ange  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Ahmed R El-Awady  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Open-flap versus minimally invasive esthetic crown lengthening: Systematic review and meta-analysis 
260 |b Elsevier,   |c 2023-06-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 2772-5596 
500 |a 10.1016/j.dentre.2023.100069 
520 |a Background: Esthetic crown lengthening is often performed to address excessive gingival display due to altered passive eruption. When bone reduction is required, most surgeons approach this procedure with an open flap approach. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of an open flap versus a more conservative closed flap approach. Methods: An electronic search of Medline Pubmed and Cochrane library was conducted with "Does a flapless approach with piezoelectric to crown lengthening provide superior results than the traditional crown lengthening approach?" as the focused question. After reviewing the selected articles, the data was extracted to evaluate the relative gingival margin as the primary outcome variable. Statistical analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines for meta-analysis. Results: Out of 65 studies, 4 prospective randomized controlled clinical trials met the inclusion criteria and were included for further analysis. The estimated standard difference in means for all studies was 0.349 (95% CI: (0.133, 0.565), p = 0.002) indicating that the open flap had a larger change in gingival margin from baseline to 3 months than the flapless technique. The results of Cochran's Q concluded no evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q = 4.745, d.f.=5, p-value=0.448). The funnel plots and fail-safe analyses concluded no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions: A minimally invasive closed flap approach using piezoelectric instruments, in the appropriate cases, seem to have better gingival margin stability at 3 months and excellent patient centered outcomes. Further well-designed studies are needed to shed more light on the validity of this technique. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Crown lengthening 
690 |a Esthetics periodontal surgery 
690 |a Plastic 
690 |a Surgical procedures 
690 |a Minimally invasive 
690 |a Dentistry 
690 |a RK1-715 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Dentistry Review, Vol 3, Iss 2, Pp 100069- (2023) 
787 0 |n http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277255962300007X 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2772-5596 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/35a76acb51c846ed8e76d8f29d5ab6a2  |z Connect to this object online.