OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the clinical results of micro- and macrosurgical approaches in the coverage of gingival recession using connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one teeth in microsurgical group (test group) and 21 in macrosurgical group (control group) were treated using coronally positioned flap and subgingival connective tissue graft. Recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), root surface area (RSA), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth, clinical attachment level, pain level during healing, and aesthetic results were evaluated for 24 months. RESULTS: RD, RW, and RSA were significantly lower at 1, 3, 6, and 24th months compared with baseline in both groups. RD was also significantly lower in the 1st month compared with 24th month in control group. RD and RSA at 24th month were significantly lower in microsurgical group. KTW significantly and similarly increased by 6th month in both groups. The pain levels in the donor and the recipient area decreased earlier in the microsurgical group, and aesthetic scores improved similarly in both groups. CONCLUSION: A microsurgical approach to root coverage with gingival recession is likely to preserve the clinical outcomes longer than macrosurgical approach, at least for 24 months. Healing appears to be faster using microsurgery, but aesthetic outcomes are similar. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study evaluated the clinical results of microsurgical versus macrosurgical approaches to root coverage in cases of gingival recession. Based on the results of the study, pain levels in the donor and the recipient areas decreased earlier in the microsurgical group, and microsurgical approach resulted in significantly greater amount of root coverage at 24 months.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the clinical results of micro- and macrosurgical approaches in the coverage of gingival recession using connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one teeth in microsurgical group (test group) and 21 in macrosurgical group (control group) were treated using coronally positioned flap and subgingival connective tissue graft. Recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), root surface area (RSA), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth, clinical attachment level, pain level during healing, and aesthetic results were evaluated for 24 months. RESULTS: RD, RW, and RSA were significantly lower at 1, 3, 6, and 24th months compared with baseline in both groups. RD was also significantly lower in the 1st month compared with 24th month in control group. RD and RSA at 24th month were significantly lower in microsurgical group. KTW significantly and similarly increased by 6th month in both groups. The pain levels in the donor and the recipient area decreased earlier in the microsurgical group, and aesthetic scores improved similarly in both groups. CONCLUSION: A microsurgical approach to root coverage with gingival recession is likely to preserve the clinical outcomes longer than macrosurgical approach, at least for 24 months. Healing appears to be faster using microsurgery, but aesthetic outcomes are similar. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study evaluated the clinical results of microsurgical versus macrosurgical approaches to root coverage in cases of gingival recession. Based on the results of the study, pain levels in the donor and the recipient areas decreased earlier in the microsurgical group, and microsurgical approach resulted in significantly greater amount of root coverage at 24 months.