BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recession. This randomized clinical trial compared the coronally positioned flap (CPF) alone or in conjunction with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the treatment of gingival recession. METHODS:Eleven non-smoking subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I recession defects were selected. The defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were randomly assigned to the test (CPF + SCTG) or control group (CPF alone). Recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized tissue (KT), and gingival/mucosal thickness (GT) were assessed at baseline and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS:Recession depth was significantly reduced 6 months postoperatively (P<0.05) for both groups. Mean root coverage was 75% and 69% in the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in RD, PD, or CAL, either at baseline or at 6 months postoperatively. However, at 6 months postoperatively, the test group showed a statistically significant increase in KT and GT compared to the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that both surgical approaches are effective in addressing root coverage. However, when an increase in gingival dimensions (keratinized tissue width, gingival/mucosal thickness) is a desired outcome, then the combined technique (CPF + SCTG) should be used.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recession. This randomized clinical trial compared the coronally positioned flap (CPF) alone or in conjunction with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the treatment of gingival recession. METHODS: Eleven non-smoking subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I recession defects were selected. The defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were randomly assigned to the test (CPF + SCTG) or control group (CPF alone). Recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized tissue (KT), and gingival/mucosal thickness (GT) were assessed at baseline and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Recession depth was significantly reduced 6 months postoperatively (P<0.05) for both groups. Mean root coverage was 75% and 69% in the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in RD, PD, or CAL, either at baseline or at 6 months postoperatively. However, at 6 months postoperatively, the test group showed a statistically significant increase in KT and GT compared to the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that both surgical approaches are effective in addressing root coverage. However, when an increase in gingival dimensions (keratinized tissue width, gingival/mucosal thickness) is a desired outcome, then the combined technique (CPF + SCTG) should be used.