BACKGROUND: Numerous surgical approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession (GR) defects are documented in the literature. The aim of this 5-year, split mouth-design, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone versus CAF with connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG) in the treatment of single Miller Class I and II GR defects. METHODS:Thirty-seven patients with 114 bilateral, single Miller Class I and II GR defects were treated with CAF on one side of the mouth and CAF+CTG on the other side. Clinical measurements (GR length [REC], keratinized tissue width [KT], complete root coverage [CRC], and percentage of root coverage [PRC]) were evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, 24, and 60 months. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction of REC and increase of KT after surgery in both groups. CAF+CTG showed significantly better results for all evaluated clinical parameters in all observed follow-up periods. Miller Class I defects showed better results in terms of REC, CRC, and PRC, whereas Miller Class II showed better results in KT, both in favor of CAF+CTG. Miller Class I defects showed better results than Miller Class II GR defects regardless of the surgical procedure used. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical procedures were effective in the treatment of single Miller Class I and II GR defects. The CAF+CTG procedure provided better long-term outcomes (60 months postoperatively) than CAF alone. Long-term stability of the gingival margin is less predictable for Miller Class II GR defects compared to those of Class I.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Numerous surgical approaches for the treatment of single gingival recession (GR) defects are documented in the literature. The aim of this 5-year, split mouth-design, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone versus CAF with connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG) in the treatment of single Miller Class I and II GR defects. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with 114 bilateral, single Miller Class I and II GR defects were treated with CAF on one side of the mouth and CAF+CTG on the other side. Clinical measurements (GR length [REC], keratinized tissue width [KT], complete root coverage [CRC], and percentage of root coverage [PRC]) were evaluated before surgery and after 6, 12, 24, and 60 months. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction of REC and increase of KT after surgery in both groups. CAF+CTG showed significantly better results for all evaluated clinical parameters in all observed follow-up periods. Miller Class I defects showed better results in terms of REC, CRC, and PRC, whereas Miller Class II showed better results in KT, both in favor of CAF+CTG. Miller Class I defects showed better results than Miller Class II GR defects regardless of the surgical procedure used. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgical procedures were effective in the treatment of single Miller Class I and II GR defects. The CAF+CTG procedure provided better long-term outcomes (60 months postoperatively) than CAF alone. Long-term stability of the gingival margin is less predictable for Miller Class II GR defects compared to those of Class I.