Skip to content

Comparing Heat Treated Platelet-Rich Fibrin and gum tissue grafts with a special surgical technique to improve thin gums in single receding areas

Comparative Evaluation Of The Efficacy Of Heat- Modified- Platelet -Rich Fibrin (HM-PRF) Versus Connective Tissue Graft In Combination With Tunnel Technique For Gingival Phenotype Modification In Isolated RT1 Gingival Recession : A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study - NIL

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/05/087136
Enrollment
48
Registered
2025-05-20
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-05-26

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

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: TUNNEL- TECHNIQUE WITH HEAT MODIFIED PRF: The tunnel is prepared by mucoperiosteal dissection under the papilla. Intrasulcular incisions are made using 15c blade or microsurgical blades

Sponsors

Government Dental College And Research InstituteBangalore
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: a) Age 18-45 years of both gender b) Presence of a single teeth with (Cairo RT 1) facial Marginal tissue recession defects at least 2 mm and up to 5 mm in depth c) Presence of at least 1mm of gingival thickness at the site d) Presence of at least 2 mm and up to 4 mm of keratinized gingival tissue from mucogingival junction to marginal gingiva e) Presence of identifiable buccal cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) f) Generally healthy participants. (ASA 1) g) Palatal mucosal thickness 2.5mm as assessed by trans-gingival probing which serve as donor site.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: a) Pregnant and lactating women. b) Recession defects associated with non-carious cervical lesions, c) Mobility of teeth greater than Grade II(Miller) d) Teeth exhibiting traumatic occlusion e) Teeth with evidence of a pulpal pathology and non-vital tooth. f) Teeth that had periodontal surgical procedure for root coverage in the last 2 years. g) Participants who are active smokers at the time of screening h) Participants taking any drugs that modify gingival phenotype

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
i) Gingival phenotype modification [6 months] assessed by volumetric change ii) Height of keratinized tissue width [baseline and at 6 months] iii.Recession depth reduction [baseline , 3 months ,6 months] iv. Mean root coverage (MRC), calculated as [(Baseline RD) (6 months RD)/Baseline RD] 100%. v.Biochemical outcomes : VEGF levels at baseline , 7 and 14 days Timepoint: Baseline, 3 months ,and 6 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
a) Pain assessment at the donor site [ Time Frame: 7 days] Wong Becker Scale b) Number of analgesic pills consumed per day [ Time Frame:1- 7 days] counting number of analgesics consumed per day as reported by the subject c) Root Coverage Esthetic score [Baseline- 6 months] Complete root coverage (CRC) calculated as the percentage treated site with 100% coverageTimepoint: Baseline , 3months and 6months

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Veena S Dodwad

Government dental college and research institute

periosmitha@gmail.com9449630572

Outcome results

None listed

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