A comparative study of root coverage obtained with guided tissue regeneration utilizing a bioabsorbable membrane versus the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft.

Obtaining predictable root coverage has become an important part of periodontal therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare two techniques of obtaining root coverage. The two techniques were the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft and guided tissue regeneration with a bioabsorbable polylactic acid softened with citric acid ester membrane. The connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft had a mean root coverage of 97.1%, and the guided tissue regeneration procedure produced a mean root coverage of 75.1%. This difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, it was the goal of this study to determine if the thickness of the tissue near the defect was a factor in root coverage. Thickness of the tissue was not a factor with the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft. The thin areas had a mean root coverage of 100%, while the others had a mean root coverage of 95.9%. This difference was not statistically significant; however, the thickness of the tissue was a factor in root coverage success in the guided tissue regeneration procedure. The thin areas treated with guided tissue regeneration had a mean root coverage of 26.7%, while the others had a mean root coverage of 95.9%. This difference was statistically significant. The results of this study demonstrate that root coverage is possible with both procedures. However, when the tissue in the area of the defect is relatively thin, the connective tissue with partial-thickness double pedicle graft will produce greater root coverage. When treating defects with tissue that is not thin, similar amounts of root coverage can be obtained with both procedures.