BACKGROUND: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recession, associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a connective tissue graft (CTG) alone, or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CTG+R). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty patients presenting Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG+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 baseline and 45 days, and 2, 3 and 6 months after 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 6 months. The percentages of CLH covered were 74.88 +/- 8.66% for CTG and 70.76 +/- 9.81% for CTG+R (p>0.05). The estimated root coverage was 91.91 +/- 17.76% for CTG and 88.64 +/- 11.9% for CTG+R (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage. The presence of the glass ionomer restoration may not prevent the root coverage achieved by CTG.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recession, associated with non-carious cervical lesions by a connective tissue graft (CTG) alone, or in combination with a resin-modified glass ionomer restoration (CTG+R). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients presenting Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions, associated with non-carious cervical lesions, were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to receive either CTG or CTG+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 baseline and 45 days, and 2, 3 and 6 months after 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 6 months. The percentages of CLH covered were 74.88 +/- 8.66% for CTG and 70.76 +/- 9.81% for CTG+R (p>0.05). The estimated root coverage was 91.91 +/- 17.76% for CTG and 88.64 +/- 11.9% for CTG+R (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that both procedures provide comparable soft tissue coverage. The presence of the glass ionomer restoration may not prevent the root coverage achieved by CTG.