BACKGROUND: Various surgical procedures have been proposed as effective treatment methods for recession defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of root coverage comparing the coronally positioned flap (CPF) with and without guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier in paired gingival recession defects. METHODS: Procedures were performed in 10 patients having bilateral buccal recession defects > or = 2.0 mm on maxillary canines and first premolars. Mucoperiosteal flaps were raised and root surfaces were scaled, planed, and conditioned. Randomly assigned sites received either GTR + CPF or CPF treatment. Clinical parameters measured at baseline and at 6 months after the procedure included gingival recession depth (GRD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), keratinized gingival width (KGW), and alveolar crest level (ACL). RESULTS: GRD decreased from 3.4 +/- 0.6 mm to 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm with GTR (45% root coverage) and from 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm to 1.3 +/- 0.7 mm with CPF (60% root coverage). The difference in GRD decrease between procedures was significant. CAL, KGW, and PD differences between procedures were not significant. ACL mean gain was significant (1.0 +/- 0.6 mm in the GTR group and 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm in the CPF group; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both GTR and CPF procedures result in root coverage. The amount of root coverage obtained with CPF was greater than that observed with GTR, although GTR resulted in significantly greater ACL gain.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Various surgical procedures have been proposed as effective treatment methods for recession defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of root coverage comparing the coronally positioned flap (CPF) with and without guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier in paired gingival recession defects. METHODS: Procedures were performed in 10 patients having bilateral buccal recession defects > or = 2.0 mm on maxillary canines and first premolars. Mucoperiosteal flaps were raised and root surfaces were scaled, planed, and conditioned. Randomly assigned sites received either GTR + CPF or CPF treatment. Clinical parameters measured at baseline and at 6 months after the procedure included gingival recession depth (GRD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), keratinized gingival width (KGW), and alveolar crest level (ACL). RESULTS:GRD decreased from 3.4 +/- 0.6 mm to 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm with GTR (45% root coverage) and from 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm to 1.3 +/- 0.7 mm with CPF (60% root coverage). The difference in GRD decrease between procedures was significant. CAL, KGW, and PD differences between procedures were not significant. ACL mean gain was significant (1.0 +/- 0.6 mm in the GTR group and 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm in the CPF group; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both GTR and CPF procedures result in root coverage. The amount of root coverage obtained with CPF was greater than that observed with GTR, although GTR resulted in significantly greater ACL gain.