Clinical Evaluation of Conventional Versus Microsurgical Techniques of Esthetic Crown Lengthening

Not Applicable

• Conditions: Gummy Smile
• Interventions: Procedure: Test group; Procedure: Control group

• Registration Number: NCT03804281
• Lead Sponsor: Cairo University

Brief Summary

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.

Detailed Description

Not available

Study Timeline

• Status Verified: 2019-01
• Study First Submitted: 2019-01-11
• Study First Submitted QC: 2019-01-14
• Study First Posted: 2019-01-15
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-01-16
• Last Update Posted: 2019-01-18
• Study Start: 2019-02-01
• Primary Completion: 2020-01-01
• Study Completion: 2020-08-01

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: UNKNOWN
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 24

Inclusion Criteria

• Patients with healthy systemic condition.
• Adult patients ˃ 18 years old.
• The presence of the six upper anterior teeth.
• Absence of sites with attachment loss and probing depth (PD) >3 mm
• Keratinized gingiva of at least 2mm width.
• Compliance with good oral hygiene.
• Patients accepts 6-months follow-up period (cooperative patients).
• Patients provides an informed consent

Exclusion Criteria

• Gummy smile with normal tooth proportions
• Presence of prosthetic crowns
• Extensive restorations
• Extensive incisal edge attrition.
• Misalignment on maxillary anterior teeth.
• Smokers ˃ 10 cigarettes / day.

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Test group	Test group	esthetic crown lengthening with microsurgical approach
Control group	Control group	esthetic crown lengthening with conventional approach.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mid-buccal gingival margin level	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

Name	Time	Method
Pink Esthetic Score (PES)	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	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	6 months	A 3-item questionnaire is asked and the patients shall use a 7-point answer scale