BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinically the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) or microfilled resin composite (MRC) and coronally positioned flap (CPF) at 6 months following surgery. METHODS:Fifty-nine patients were assigned to one of three treatments: root exposure without NCCL treated with CPF (group 1); root exposure with NCCL treated with RMGI restoration plus CPF (group 2); or root exposure with NCCL treated with MRC restoration plus CPF (group 3). Clinical measurements that were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after surgery included plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP); probing depth (PD), recession reduction (RR), clinical attachment level gain (CALG), keratinized tissue height (KTH), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT), percentage of root coverage (RC), and percentage of restored root coverage (RRC). RESULTS: Intra- and intergroup analyses demonstrated no significant differences in PI, BOP, PD, RR, CALG, KTH, or KTT (P >0.05) among the groups at any time. At 6 months, the mean RC was 80.83% +/- 21.08% for group 1; the mean RRCs were 71.99% +/- 18.69% and 74.18% +/- 15.02% for groups 2 and 3, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in RRC between groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: All treatments showed root coverage improvement without damage to periodontal tissues, supporting the use of CPF for treatment of root surfaces restored with RMGI or MRC as being effective over the 6-month period.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinically the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) or microfilled resin composite (MRC) and coronally positioned flap (CPF) at 6 months following surgery. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients were assigned to one of three treatments: root exposure without NCCL treated with CPF (group 1); root exposure with NCCL treated with RMGI restoration plus CPF (group 2); or root exposure with NCCL treated with MRC restoration plus CPF (group 3). Clinical measurements that were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after surgery included plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP); probing depth (PD), recession reduction (RR), clinical attachment level gain (CALG), keratinized tissue height (KTH), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT), percentage of root coverage (RC), and percentage of restored root coverage (RRC). RESULTS: Intra- and intergroup analyses demonstrated no significant differences in PI, BOP, PD, RR, CALG, KTH, or KTT (P >0.05) among the groups at any time. At 6 months, the mean RC was 80.83% +/- 21.08% for group 1; the mean RRCs were 71.99% +/- 18.69% and 74.18% +/- 15.02% for groups 2 and 3, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in RRC between groups 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: All treatments showed root coverage improvement without damage to periodontal tissues, supporting the use of CPF for treatment of root surfaces restored with RMGI or MRC as being effective over the 6-month period.