Journal of Dental Medicine

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE AR-SA In this study, 30 boy students of 16-17 years were randomly selected and were allocated into three groups: The control group, Bass group in which the members were instructed to brush their teeth with Bass method and Rolling method group in which they were asked to brush  with Rolling Method. Two latter groups brushed their teeth two times a day (morning/night) .for all the participants, ultrasonic scaling was done 4 weeks prior to the study. After 4 weeks, PLI and GI were measured and recorded by Sillness and Loe method. All the participants used a soft multitufted tooth brush. All 3 groups showed lower indices in comparison to basle line measurements but Two latter groups showed  higher difference in comparison to the control group.The difference between Second and third groups was not found statistically significant. Gingival index during 4 weeks of study has not changed siginificantly.The obtained results confirmed the importance of duration and quality of every brushing technique.

There are many researches evaluation different methods for covering the root surface. In the most of these studies, type I and II of Miller treatment had been searched. The purpose of this study was a comparison between connective tissue graft (CTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recession defects (Miller class III). Six patients, each contributing a pair of Miller class III buccal gingival recessions, were treated. The clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 1,2,4,6,12,18 months after surgery. Statistical analysis were performed using paired t-test between periods (baseline versus 6 months and baseline versus 18 months) within each treatment group and also between treatment groups before treatment and 6, 12 and 18 months after the treatment. The treatments were compared by a triple analysis of variance along the time (treatment, patient, time). Both CTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The CTG and GTR procedures had mean root coverage of 55% and 47.5% respectively, in the end of study. The CTG group was statistically better than GTR for recession depth, recession width and keratinized tissue width. Also, passing the time (18 months) as a distinct factor of treatment procedures was effective in increasing of clinical attachment level and keratinized tissue width.