A study comparing two gum recession treatments: one using tissue from under the gums and the other from the bone covering, both paired with a technique to reposition gums. It checks which works better for mild to moderate cases.

Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of periosteal pedicle graft compared to connective tissue graft in combination with coronally advanced flap technique in treatment of millers class I and II gingival recession A randomized clinical study - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2Phase 3

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2025/09/094370

Enrollment

Registered

2025-09-08

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-09-15

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

Conditions

Health Condition 1: Z789- Other specified health status

Interventions

Intervention1: Group A (Control Group n=15): Will be treated with Connective Tissue Graft using Coronally Advanced Flap Technique.: Langer and Langer2first described the use of connective tissue gra

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients with localized multiple gingival recession (Miller Class I or II) on two contralateral sites of the maxillary or mandibular arch with a minimum 2-3 mm recession depth. 2. Age range: 18-50 years. 3. Systemically healthy patients with no contraindications for periodontal surgery. 4. Plaque Index Score (Silness J and Loe. H, 1964)less than 1 post-phase I therapy.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Pregnancy or lactation. 2. Systemic diseases affecting treatment outcome. 3. Patient using tobacco in smoke or smokeless form. 4. Alcoholics and patients with history of drug abuse. 5. Use of antibiotics or long-term anti-inflammatory medication within the past three months.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
To clinically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Periosteal Pedicle Graft compared To Connective Tissue Graft in combination with Coronally Advanced Flap Technique in treatment of Miller’s Class I And II Gingival Recession.Timepoint: at baseline at 3 months at 6 months	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Secondary outcomes include post-operative pain, morbidity, healing time, keratinized tissue gain, tissue aesthetics, donor site complications (CTG), & surgical ease, with PPG favoring recovery & CTG excelling in tissue stability.Timepoint: at baseline , at 3 months, at 6 months	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr.Deepti Reddy

M.A.Rangoonwala dental sciences and research centre

deeptireddy2509@gmail.com08605111759

Outcome results

None listed

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