Abstract: Background: Actinic prurigo (AP) is an idiopathic photodermatosis. Although its initial manifestations can appear in 6 to 8-year-old children, cases are diagnosed later, between the second and fourth decades of life, when the injuries are exacerbated. Objective: To identify risk factors associated with clinical manifestations of AP such as skin and mucosal lesions. Methods: Thirty patients with AP and 60 controls were included in the study, the dependent variable was the presence of skin or labial mucosal lesions, the independent variables were age, sex, solar exposure, living with pets or farm animals, exposure to wood smoke, smoking habit, years smoking, and hours spent per day and per week in contact with people who smoke. Results: Of the 30 diagnosed AP patients, 66.7% were female. Patients age ranged from 7 to 71 years and the mean age was 35.77 ± 14.55 years. We found significant differences with the age and cohabitation with farm animals. Those who lived with farm animals presented 14.31 times higher probability of developing AP (95% CI 3-78.06). Study limitations: This is a case-control study; therefore, a causal relationship cannot be proven, and these results cannot be generalized to every population. Conclusions: The identification of factors related to the development of AP increases our knowledge of its physiopathology. Moreover, identifying antigens that possibly trigger the allergic reaction will have preventive and therapeutic applications in populations at risk of AP.

The present article described a clinical case where it was assessed whether aggregation of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) to the procedure of coronary-advanced flap with sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (CAF + SCTG) would improve the amount of root coverage in Miller's class I and II gingival recessions when compared to the same isolated procedure in a patient suffering multiple gingival recessions, in a 6 month time-span. Twelve gingival recessions were included in the study: six treated with (CAF + SCTG + EMD) and six treated with (CAF + SCTG) in different quadrants. At beginning of procedure as well as six months later, the following clinical parameters were measured: gingival recession depth (RD), depth to probing (PD), clinical insertion level (CIL) and width of keratinized tissue (KT) in apex-coronary direction. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results established that after a six month procedure CAF + SCTG + EMD and CAF + SCTG produced significant root coverage, respective averages were 2.83 ± 1.16 mm (p = 0.001) and 2.50 ± 0.83 mm (p = .002). All gingival recessions treated with EMD experienced 100% root coverage, sites treated with CAF + SCTG + EMD exhibited coverage of only 65.3%. When comparing results at six months, better results were observed with CAF + SCTG + EMD with respect to clinical insertion level (p = .02) and root coverage (p = .06). Nevertheless, neither the difference of clinical level insertion nor the gain in root coverage resulted significant. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between PD and KT. Conclusion: The present clinical case did not show additional benefits when EMD were aggregated to the CAF + SCTG in the coverage of multiple Miller's class I and class II gingival recessions.

Se presenta un caso clínico donde se evaluó si la agregación del derivado de la matriz del esmalte (DME) al procedimiento del colgajo de avance coronal con injerto de tejido conectivo subepitelial (CDC + ITCS) mejoraría la cantidad de cobertura radicular en recesiones gingivales clase I y II de Miller comparados con el mismo procedimiento solo, en un paciente con recesiones gingivales múltiples a seis meses. Se incluyeron 12 recesiones gingivales, seis tratadas con (CAC + ITCSE + DME) y seis con (CAC + ITCSE) en diferentes cuadrantes. Al inicio y a los seis meses se midieron los parámetros clínicos tales como profundidad de la recesión gingival (PR), profundidad al sondeo (PS), nivel de inserción clínica (NIC), y ancho de tejido queratinizado en dirección apico-coronal (TQ). Un valor p < 0.05 se consideró significativo. Los resultados mostraron que a los seis meses ambos procedimientos, CAC + ITCSE + DME y CAC + ITCSE produjeron una significativa cobertura radicular en promedio 2.83 ± 1.16 mm (p = 0.001) y 2.50 ± 0.83 mm (p = .002), respectivamente. Todas las recesiones gingivales tratadas con el DME tuvieron el 100% de cobertura radicular y sólo el 65.3% de cobertura para los sitios tratados con CAC + ITCSE. Al comparar ambos procedimientos a los seis meses, se observaron mejores resultados con CAC + ITCSE + DME en cuanto al nivel de inserción clínica (p = .02) y la cobertura radicular (p = .06); sin embargo, ni la diferencia del nivel de inserción clínico ni la ganancia en la cobertura radicular mostraron ser significativos. Por otro lado, no se observaron diferencias significativas en la PS y TQ. Conclusión: El presente caso clínico no mostró beneficio adicional cuando se agregó el DME al procedimiento de CAC + ITCSE para la cobertura de recesiones gingivales múltiples clase I y II de Miller.