Surgical treatment of cyclosporine A- and nifedipine-induced gingival enlargement: gingivectomy versus periodontal flap.
The purpose of this study was to compare probing depth resolution achieved by gingivectomy and periodontal flap techniques in the treatment of cyclosporine A- and nifedipine-induced gingival enlargement. Ten kidney transplant patients who were receiving cyclosporine A and nifedipine for at least 6 months participated in the study. Five patients were randomly assigned to the gingivectomy group and 5 patients to the periodontal flap group. Only anterior segments of the oral cavity (canine to canine) were surgically treated. Clinical measurements, including probing depths, plaque index, and gingival sulcus index, were taken at baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Results showed that probing depths, while similar for both groups in the first 6 weeks of the study, were significantly shallower for the periodontal flap group when compared to the gingivectomy group at 6 months (2.48 +/- 0.34 mm versus 4.87 +/- 0.79 mm, respectively) and 1 year (322 +/- 0.65 mm versus 6.40 +/- 1.02 mm, respectively). Within its limitations, this study suggests that the pocket reduction achieved by the periodontal flap may be sustained for longer periods of time than by the gingivectomy technique in the treatment of cyclosporine A- and nifedipine-induced gingival enlargement.[1]References
- Surgical treatment of cyclosporine A- and nifedipine-induced gingival enlargement: gingivectomy versus periodontal flap. Pilloni, A., Camargo, P.M., Carere, M., Carranza, F.A. J. Periodontol. (1998) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
