INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and subepithelial connective tissue grafts (sCTG) in the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recession (GR) defects. METHODS:Six patients with eight GR sites were randomly assigned to the test group (GR defects treated with ADM) and control group (GR defects treated with sCTG). Recession height (RH) and width, probing depth, keratinized gingiva, clinical attachment level, and full mouth plaque and bleeding scores were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: The differences in mean changes were insignificant between the two groups in all parameters. In both groups, improvements from baseline to 3 and 6 months were significant for mean RH reduction and clinical attachment gain. A significant increase in the mean keratinized gingiva width was observed in both groups at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: ADM and sCTG yield similar outcomes when used in the treatment of GR defects.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and subepithelial connective tissue grafts (sCTG) in the treatment of Miller class I and II gingival recession (GR) defects. METHODS: Six patients with eight GR sites were randomly assigned to the test group (GR defects treated with ADM) and control group (GR defects treated with sCTG). Recession height (RH) and width, probing depth, keratinized gingiva, clinical attachment level, and full mouth plaque and bleeding scores were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: The differences in mean changes were insignificant between the two groups in all parameters. In both groups, improvements from baseline to 3 and 6 months were significant for mean RH reduction and clinical attachment gain. A significant increase in the mean keratinized gingiva width was observed in both groups at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION: ADM and sCTG yield similar outcomes when used in the treatment of GR defects.