AIM: To investigate the efficacy of root coverage procedures and factors that may affect the clinical outcomes in non-experimental patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-seven root coverage surgical procedures in 215 adult patients were evaluated retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the patient profile. Comparisons between surgeries were assessed, and the impact of different parameters on the probability of mean/complete root coverage and gingival augmentation was explored. RESULTS: The mean percentage of root coverage was 72.29 (+/- 28)%. Complete root coverage was observed in 35.56% of the defects. The difference between the surgical procedures was not significant. The mean percentage of gingival augmentation was 106.18 (+/- 260)%. The difference between non-submerged grafts and the other techniques was significant (p<10(-3)). A significant negative impact of smoking, and maxillary teeth for both mean and complete root coverage were found. A significant positive impact of the tuberosity donor site was found for complete root coverage. Maxillary teeth and Miller's Class II and III were positive predictive factors for gingival augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Under non-experimental conditions, root coverage procedures are effective. Smoking, maxillary teeth, donor site, and Miller's Classes are prognostic factors that may affect the results.
AIM: To investigate the efficacy of root coverage procedures and factors that may affect the clinical outcomes in non-experimental patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-seven root coverage surgical procedures in 215 adult patients were evaluated retrospectively. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the patient profile. Comparisons between surgeries were assessed, and the impact of different parameters on the probability of mean/complete root coverage and gingival augmentation was explored. RESULTS: The mean percentage of root coverage was 72.29 (+/- 28)%. Complete root coverage was observed in 35.56% of the defects. The difference between the surgical procedures was not significant. The mean percentage of gingival augmentation was 106.18 (+/- 260)%. The difference between non-submerged grafts and the other techniques was significant (p<10(-3)). A significant negative impact of smoking, and maxillary teeth for both mean and complete root coverage were found. A significant positive impact of the tuberosity donor site was found for complete root coverage. Maxillary teeth and Miller's Class II and III were positive predictive factors for gingival augmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Under non-experimental conditions, root coverage procedures are effective. Smoking, maxillary teeth, donor site, and Miller's Classes are prognostic factors that may affect the results.