AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and aesthetic parameters following a connective tissue graft (CTG) combined with the modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF), or the coronally advanced flap combined with vertical incisions (CAF) in the treatment of Miller class I and II recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with 99 recessions were treated in a split-mouth study model. The MCAF with CTG was used on the right side, while the CAF with CTG was applied on the left side. The clinical and aesthetic evaluation was executed. RESULTS: The mean root coverage on the MCAF side was 90.52% 1 year post-operatively, whereas on the CAF side was 91.77%. A complete root coverage (CRC) was achieved in 78.43% of gingival defects treated with the MCAF and 83.33% defects treated with the CAF. The average RES after the MCAF was 7.98 ± 1.88 and after the CAF was 8.37 ± 1.81. There was no significant difference in the CRC and RES values or their variables between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: MCAF with CTG and CAF with CTG allow obtaining satisfactory and comparable root coverage as well as an aesthetic outcome without the negative effect of vertical incisions on the appearance of soft tissue.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and aesthetic parameters following a connective tissue graft (CTG) combined with the modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF), or the coronally advanced flap combined with vertical incisions (CAF) in the treatment of Miller class I and II recessions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with 99 recessions were treated in a split-mouth study model. The MCAF with CTG was used on the right side, while the CAF with CTG was applied on the left side. The clinical and aesthetic evaluation was executed. RESULTS: The mean root coverage on the MCAF side was 90.52% 1 year post-operatively, whereas on the CAF side was 91.77%. A complete root coverage (CRC) was achieved in 78.43% of gingival defects treated with the MCAF and 83.33% defects treated with the CAF. The average RES after the MCAF was 7.98 ± 1.88 and after the CAF was 8.37 ± 1.81. There was no significant difference in the CRC and RES values or their variables between the two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: MCAF with CTG and CAF with CTG allow obtaining satisfactory and comparable root coverage as well as an aesthetic outcome without the negative effect of vertical incisions on the appearance of soft tissue.