BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year follow-up success of the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CAF+R). MATERIAL AND METHODS:Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects received either CAF or CAF+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL) and cervical lesion height (CLH) coverage were measured at the baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after the treatment. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, RGR and CAL, after 2 years. The percentages of CLH covered were 51.57 +/- 17.2% for CAF+R and 53.87 +/- 12.6% for CAF (p>0.05). The estimated root coverage was 80.37 +/- 25.44% for CAF+R and 83.46 +/- 20.79% for CAF (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide acceptable soft tissue coverage after 2 years, with no significant differences between the two approaches.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year follow-up success of the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CAF+R). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects received either CAF or CAF+R. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL) and cervical lesion height (CLH) coverage were measured at the baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after the treatment. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant gains in CAL and soft tissue coverage. The differences between groups were not statistically significant in BOP, PD, RGR and CAL, after 2 years. The percentages of CLH covered were 51.57 +/- 17.2% for CAF+R and 53.87 +/- 12.6% for CAF (p>0.05). The estimated root coverage was 80.37 +/- 25.44% for CAF+R and 83.46 +/- 20.79% for CAF (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide acceptable soft tissue coverage after 2 years, with no significant differences between the two approaches.