Title: 3517 - Enamel Matrix Derivative on Class III-IV Miller Periodontal Recessions


Faustino Mercado (Presenter)
Specialist Dental Group

Stephen Hamlet, Griffith University
Saso Ivanovski, University of Queensland


Objectives: The study compared clinical and Pain-Visual Analogue Scale (P-VAS) of sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) with and without enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of Class III-IV Miller periodontal recession defects on lower anterior teeth.

Methods: This prospective clinical study evaluated 41 patients over 3 years follow up. The mean age of the treated adult patients was 43 ± 7.5 years old. 156 lower anterior teeth were divided into two groups: Test (CTG with EMD – 79 teeth) and Control (CTG only – 77 teeth). Clinical Recession (REC), Keratinized Tissue (KT) width, % root coverage, and pain visual analogue scale (P-VAS) were compared between the two groups.

Results: At 3 years follow up, REC in the test group reduced significantly more (5.71 ± 0.58 mm to 1.57 ± 0.85 mm) compared to control group (5.94 ± 0.46 mm to 2.51 ± 0.62 mm), while KT width increased significantly more in the test group (1.51 ± 0.26 mm to 4.18 ± 0.34 mm) compared to the control group (1.65 ± 0.21 mm to 2.90 ± 0.20 mm) at 36 months (p < 0.01). Significantly less pain was reported at the 2nd, 7th and 14 days follow-up post-surgery in the test group (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Addition of EMD resulted in improved root coverage outcomes and higher amounts of keratinized tissue width 36 months after treatment on the lower anterior teeth of the treated patients. The adjunctive use of EMD also resulted in significantly reduced pain 14 days after the surgery. Further long-term studies are required to determine if the putative biological benefits of using EMD are reflected in enhanced clinical outcomes in terms of recurrence of recession and increased tooth retention in this older population.

Student Presenter

Disclosure Statement:
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONE