Birsen Korkmaz1, Umut Balli2. 1. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey. birsenkorkmaz91@gmail.com. 2. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the combination of tunnel technique (TT) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) for root coverage in treating multiple gingival recessions (GR) and compare with the connective tissue graft (CTG). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty patients with Miller Class I and II maxillary or mandibular GR were randomly divided into two groups as follows: TT + CTG and TT + CGF. The results at baseline and 6 months were evaluated for the following clinical parameters: complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), gingival thickness (GT), gingival recession width (RW), gingival recession depth (RD), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). RESULTS: At 6 months, a statistically significant difference was found in RD, RW, MRC, CRC, KTW, and GT compared with the baseline (p < 0.05). MRC was determined 89.52±16.36% in the TT + CTG and 76.60±24.10% in the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CRC was achieved in 66.7% of the TT + CTG and 47.4% of the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). The increase in KTW and GT was significantly better in the TT + CTG group compared to the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that TT + CGF did not improve the results as much as TT + CTG in the treatment of Miller Class I and II GR. However, this finding is not sufficient to advocate the true clinical effects of CGF on GR treatment with TT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CGF could not serve as a direct alternative biomaterial to the gold standard CTG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT04561947.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the combination of tunnel technique (TT) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) for root coverage in treating multiple gingival recessions (GR) and compare with the connective tissue graft (CTG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with Miller Class I and II maxillary or mandibular GR were randomly divided into two groups as follows: TT + CTG and TT + CGF. The results at baseline and 6 months were evaluated for the following clinical parameters: complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), gingival thickness (GT), gingival recession width (RW), gingival recession depth (RD), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). RESULTS: At 6 months, a statistically significant difference was found in RD, RW, MRC, CRC, KTW, and GT compared with the baseline (p < 0.05). MRC was determined 89.52±16.36% in the TT + CTG and 76.60±24.10% in the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CRC was achieved in 66.7% of the TT + CTG and 47.4% of the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). The increase in KTW and GT was significantly better in the TT + CTG group compared to the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that TT + CGF did not improve the results as much as TT + CTG in the treatment of Miller Class I and II GR. However, this finding is not sufficient to advocate the true clinical effects of CGF on GR treatment with TT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CGF could not serve as a direct alternative biomaterial to the gold standard CTG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT04561947.
Authors: Luigi Fabrizio Rodella; Gaia Favero; Ramon Boninsegna; Barbara Buffoli; Mauro Labanca; Giorgio Scarì; Luigi Sacco; Tiziano Batani; Rita Rezzani Journal: Microsc Res Tech Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 2.769