FindTrial
Sign In

Evaluation and Comparasion of pinhole surgical technique with and without T-PRF in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recession defects: A randomised controlled trial.

Comparative evaluation of pinhole surgical technique with and without T-PRF in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recession defects: A randomised controlled trial. - NIL

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/03/082071
Enrollment
25
Registered
2025-03-10
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: Y999- Unspecified external cause status

Interventions

Intervention1: Pinhole Surgical Technique: Patients with Class one or two Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recession Defects to be treated using Pinhole Surgical Technique Control Intervention1: Pinhole Sur

Sponsors

None
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Systemically healthy patients. Patient with healthy and stable soft tissue architecture. Co-operative motivated and hygiene conscious patients. Patients exhibiting bilateral Millers Class one or two MAGRD. Patients with more than one mm of attached gingiva at gingival recession sites. Patients who gave written consent for the procedure

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Pregnant or lactating females Tobacco smokers Uncontrolled medical conditions precluding elective surgery Untreated periodontal conditions Patients treated with any medication known to cause gingival hyperplasia Drug and alcohol abuse In addition, teeth with furcation defects, non-vital teeth, carious teeth warranting restorations and mobility more than grade two will also be excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
To evaluate and compare Pinhole surgical technique (PST) with and without T-PRF in the treatment of Multiple adjacent gingival recession defects (MAGRD), clinically and radiographically by CBCTTimepoint: Baseline, 3 and 6 months—

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
To evaluate Probing depth (PD), Clinical attachment level (CAL), Width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), Recession depth (RD) and Mean root coverage (MRC) in MAGRD when treated with PST alone at baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. To evaluate PD, CAL, WKG, RD and MRC in MAGRD when treated using PST with T-PRF at baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. To compare PD, CAL, WKG, RD and MRC in MAGRD when treated using PST with and without T-PRF at baseline, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. To evaluate and compare Gingival thickness (GT) in MAGRD when treated using PST with and without T-PRF at baseline and 6 months postoperatively by CBCT. Timepoint: Baseline, 3 and 6 months—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Rajashri Kolte

Ranjeet Deshmukh Dental College and Research Centre Nagpur

drrajashrikolte@gmail.com9011071468

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026