BACKGROUND: The coronally advanced flap (CAF) is a predictable method for achieving root coverage in buccal gingival recessions. The use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has already been tested in treating intrabony defects. No clinical comparative study has been published evaluating the CAF in combination with EMD in treating buccal gingival recessions. METHODS: This split-mouth study was performed to assess the efficacy of EMD to improve the results of a root coverage procedure. Fourteen pairs of Miller Class I and II bilateral comparable defects were selected in 12 patients. In each patient, one site was randomly assigned to the test group and the contralateral site to the control group. The treatment consisted of a CAF procedure with (test) or without (control) EMD. Gingival recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and extension of keratinized tissue (KT) were recorded at baseline and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: The average initial REC was 3.71 mm (SD +/- 1.68) for the test group, and 3.50 mm (SD +/- 1.56) for the control group. The 2 groups were statistically homogeneous. The mean root coverage was 3.36 mm (SD +/- 1.55), corresponding to a value of 91.2% for the test group, and 2.71 mm (SD +/- 1.20), equal to 80.9% for the control group. The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. The mean CAL gain was 3.57 mm (SD +/- 1.55) for the test group and 2.79 mm (SD +/- 1.19) for the control group. No changes of PD and KT were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that EMD does not seem to significantly improve the clinical outcomes of gingival recession treated by means of CAF, even though the test group showed slightly better results in terms of root coverage and CAL. Further studies with a larger number of teeth and higher statistical power are needed to support this conclusion.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The coronally advanced flap (CAF) is a predictable method for achieving root coverage in buccal gingival recessions. The use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has already been tested in treating intrabony defects. No clinical comparative study has been published evaluating the CAF in combination with EMD in treating buccal gingival recessions. METHODS: This split-mouth study was performed to assess the efficacy of EMD to improve the results of a root coverage procedure. Fourteen pairs of Miller Class I and II bilateral comparable defects were selected in 12 patients. In each patient, one site was randomly assigned to the test group and the contralateral site to the control group. The treatment consisted of a CAF procedure with (test) or without (control) EMD. Gingival recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and extension of keratinized tissue (KT) were recorded at baseline and 6 months postsurgery. RESULTS: The average initial REC was 3.71 mm (SD +/- 1.68) for the test group, and 3.50 mm (SD +/- 1.56) for the control group. The 2 groups were statistically homogeneous. The mean root coverage was 3.36 mm (SD +/- 1.55), corresponding to a value of 91.2% for the test group, and 2.71 mm (SD +/- 1.20), equal to 80.9% for the control group. The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. The mean CAL gain was 3.57 mm (SD +/- 1.55) for the test group and 2.79 mm (SD +/- 1.19) for the control group. No changes of PD and KT were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that EMD does not seem to significantly improve the clinical outcomes of gingival recession treated by means of CAF, even though the test group showed slightly better results in terms of root coverage and CAL. Further studies with a larger number of teeth and higher statistical power are needed to support this conclusion.