E-ISSN 2534-9821
 

Case Report

Online Publishing Date:
10 / 10 / 2021

 


A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report

Nikhila Chandramohan, Swetha A, Priyanka Shivanand.


Abstract
Several surgical techniques including pedicle flaps and free soft-tissue grafts have been indicated for the treatment of gingival recession with different success rates. Localized gingival recessions can be managed with various root coverage procedures, more specifically, using the coronally advanced flap with distinct designs. But recently, minimally invasive techniques have gained much importance because of lower patient morbidity and comparable results to conventional techniques. A recent innovation, the Pinhole surgical technique was shown to offer definitive advantages in terms of predictability, postoperative morbidity and patient satisfaction. This case report aims at comparing the modified triangular type of coronally advanced flap with PST to treat bilateral isolated Miller's class I defect in both the maxillary canines by a split-mouth design.

Key words: Coronally advanced flap, gingival recession, pin hole technique, root coverage


 
ARTICLE TOOLS
Abstract
PDF Fulltext
How to cite this articleHow to cite this article
Citation Tools
Related Records
 Articles by Nikhila Chandramohan
Articles by Swetha A
Articles by Priyanka Shivanand
on Google
on Google Scholar


How to Cite this Article
Pubmed Style

Chandramohan N, A S, Shivanand P. A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. Int J Med Rev Case Rep. 2021; 5(9): 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422


Web Style

Chandramohan N, A S, Shivanand P. A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. https://www.mdpub.net/?mno=97422 [Access: April 04, 2024]. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422


AMA (American Medical Association) Style

Chandramohan N, A S, Shivanand P. A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. Int J Med Rev Case Rep. 2021; 5(9): 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



Vancouver/ICMJE Style

Chandramohan N, A S, Shivanand P. A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. Int J Med Rev Case Rep. (2021), [cited April 04, 2024]; 5(9): 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



Harvard Style

Chandramohan, N., A, . S. & Shivanand, . P. (2021) A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. Int J Med Rev Case Rep, 5 (9), 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



Turabian Style

Chandramohan, Nikhila, Swetha A, and Priyanka Shivanand. 2021. A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports, 5 (9), 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



Chicago Style

Chandramohan, Nikhila, Swetha A, and Priyanka Shivanand. "A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report." International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports 5 (2021), 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style

Chandramohan, Nikhila, Swetha A, and Priyanka Shivanand. "A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report." International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports 5.9 (2021), 67-72. Print. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422



APA (American Psychological Association) Style

Chandramohan, N., A, . S. & Shivanand, . P. (2021) A split mouth comparison of minimally invasive v/s conventional technique for gingival rejuvenation – A case report. International Journal of Medical Reviews and Case Reports, 5 (9), 67-72. doi:10.5455/IJMRCR.gingival-rejuvenation-97422