BACKGROUND: Localized buccal recessions occur in more than 60% of individuals; therefore, there is a need for predictable root coverage techniques. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of localized gingival recessions over a 12-month postoperative period. METHODS:Thirty bilateral matched pairs of localized buccal recessions in 22 patients were treated withCTG and GTR in this study. For the GTR procedure, two types of bioabsorbable barriers, polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) and solvent dehydrated duramater allograft (SDDA) membranes, were used and CTG was obtained from the palatal mucosa. The selected pairs of teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups (10 pairs per group): group 1, PLGA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); group 2, SDDA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); or group 3, PLGA (10 recessions) or SDDA (10 recessions). Statistical analysis evaluated both intra- and intergroup measurements. The height of gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue (KT), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD) were assessed at baseline and at 6, 9, and 12 months following surgery. RESULTS: The amount of root coverage was 74.3%, 69.6%, and 86.3% with PLGA, SDDA, and CTG, respectively. The gain in KT was significant in the CTG group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed among the three groups with respect to PD and CAL. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that all techniques led to an improvement of all clinical parameters except PD from baseline. However, CTG increased KT considerably compared to GTR. The final esthetic results were similar for the two membranes and connective tissue graft.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Localized buccal recessions occur in more than 60% of individuals; therefore, there is a need for predictable root coverage techniques. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of localized gingival recessions over a 12-month postoperative period. METHODS: Thirty bilateral matched pairs of localized buccal recessions in 22 patients were treated with CTG and GTR in this study. For the GTR procedure, two types of bioabsorbable barriers, polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) and solvent dehydrated duramater allograft (SDDA) membranes, were used and CTG was obtained from the palatal mucosa. The selected pairs of teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups (10 pairs per group): group 1, PLGA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); group 2, SDDA (10 recessions) or CTG (10 recessions); or group 3, PLGA (10 recessions) or SDDA (10 recessions). Statistical analysis evaluated both intra- and intergroup measurements. The height of gingival recession (GR), width of keratinized tissue (KT), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD) were assessed at baseline and at 6, 9, and 12 months following surgery. RESULTS: The amount of root coverage was 74.3%, 69.6%, and 86.3% with PLGA, SDDA, and CTG, respectively. The gain in KT was significant in the CTG group (P<0.05). No significant differences were observed among the three groups with respect to PD and CAL. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that all techniques led to an improvement of all clinical parameters except PD from baseline. However, CTG increased KT considerably compared to GTR. The final esthetic results were similar for the two membranes and connective tissue graft.