Gingival Recession, Root Coverage
Conditions
Keywords
gingival recession, semilunar coronally flap, coronally advanced flap
Brief summary
A clinical evaluation of using the semilunar coronally position flap (SCPF) compared to the conventional coronally advanced flap (CAF) with modification to treat class I Miller gingival recession. The coronally repositioned gingival margin will be stabilized by coronally anchored suture with composite stops on the buccal surface of the tooth using flowable composite. The sample size will be ten patients. Each patient has bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions; one will be treated with SCPF, while the other will be treated with CAF
Detailed description
The aim of this study is to clinically compare between the semilunar coronally positioned flap (SCPF) and the conventional coronally advanced flap (CAF) after applying modification in both techniques to treat class I Miller gingival recession. Coronally repositioned gingival margin will be stabilized by coronally anchored suture with composite stops on the buccal surface of tooth using flowable composite for the treatment of gingival recession. Ten patients who have bilateral maxillary buccal Miller Class I gingival recession defects will be enrolled in this study. These defects will be distributed randomly into two groups: the test group (SCPF) and control group (CAF). Clinical parameters will be evaluated: visible plaque index (VPI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD), gingival recession height (GRH), gingival recession width (GRW), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), change in the position of muco-gingival junction, vestibular depth, wound healing index (WHI), the percentage of root coverage (RC) and root coverage esthetic score (RES) system. A questionnaire will be given to each patient, which includes evaluation of the pain intensity, root sensitivity, and satisfaction with aesthetic by using the visual analog scale (VAS) and questions about the number of analgesic pills consumed per day.
Interventions
PROCEDUREsemilunar coronally positioned flap
The description of this intervention has been already given before
PROCEDUREcoronally advanced flap
The description of this intervention has been already given before
Sponsors
Damascus University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Intervention model description
Split-mouth design, i.e. the right side will receive the first intervention, whereas the other side (the left side) will receive the second intervention.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients are in general good health. * The patient is non-smoker (less than 10 cigarettes per day) and non-alcoholic. * Female participants must not be pregnant and not at menstrual period during surgery. * The patient is committed to the oral care, and has a healthy periodontium. * Absence of severe oral habits. * They have not taken medication known to interfere with periodontal tissue health or healing in the preceding 6 months. * Presence of bilateral buccal Miller class I gingival recessions (≤5 mm) in maxillary incisors, canines, or premolars. * Presence width of keratinized tissue (WKT) ≥2 mm. * The tooth is vital and absence of caries or restorations in the areas that will be treated. * Pocket depth less than 3 mm without bleeding on probing (BOP).
Exclusion criteria
1. Patients less than 18 years old 2. Patients with untreated periodontal disease. 3. Smokers. 4. Immunosuppressive systemic diseases (like cancer, AIDS, diabetes…) 5. Miller's class II, III or IV gingival recession defects. 6. Presence of apical radiolucency or root surface restoration or caries at the defect site 7. Medications influence on the health of the gingival tissue (like calcium channel blockers, immunosuppressive systemic diseases (like cancer, AIDS, diabetes…) or Long-term steroid use
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in the amount of root coverage | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | this will be measured as a change of gingival recession height GRH (the distance from the cemento-enamel junction CEJ to the gingival margin GM by using an endodontic finger spreader attached to a rubber stopper and after removing the spreader, penetration depth was measured with a caliper of 0.01-mm resolution) from baseline and follow-up period. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in sulcus bleeding index | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) and at 3 months post-surgery | will be evaluated visually (using an UNC-15 mm University of North Carolina periodontal probe) Score 0 - health looking papillary and marginal gingiva no bleeding on probing; Score 1 - healthy looking gingiva, bleeding on probing; Score 2 - bleeding on probing, change in color, no edema; Score 3 - bleeding on probing, change in color, slight edema; Score 4 -bleeding on probing, change in color, obvious edema; Score 5 -spontaneous bleeding, change in color, marked edema |
| Change in probing depth | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) and at 3 months post-surgery | Probing depth will be measured as the distance from the gingival margin GM to the bottom of the gingival sulcus by using a periodontal probe (UNC 15 University of North Carolina) with a rubber stopper. |
| Change in the clinical attachment level | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) and at 3 months post-surgery | clinical attachment level will be calculated as the sum of the gingival recession height and the probing depth (mentioned above). |
| Change in the gingival recession width | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | Gingival recession width will be measured from one border of the recession to another at the CEJ by using an endodontic finger spreader attached to a rubber stopper and after removing the spreader, penetration depth was measured with a caliper of 0.01-mm resolution |
| Change in the width of keratinized tissue | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | The width of the keratinized tissue will be measured as the distance between the most apical point of the GM and the MGJ by using an endodontic finger spreader attached to a rubber stopper and after removing the spreader, penetration depth was measured with a caliper of 0.01-mm resolution. |
| Change in visible plaque index | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | Score 0 - No plaque Score 1 - Separate flecks of plaque at the cervical margin of the tooth Score 2 - A thin continuous band of plaque at the cervical margin of the tooth Score 3 - A band of plaque wider then 1mm covering less than 1/3rd of the crown of the tooth Score 4 - Plaque covering at least 1/3rd but less than 2/3rd of the crown of the tooth Score 5 - Plaque covering 2/3rd or more of the crown of the tooth |
| Change in the position of the mucogingival junction | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | The distance between the incisal edge and the mucogingival junction will be measured using an endodontic finger spreader attached to a rubber stopper and after removing the spreader, penetration depth was measured with a caliper of 0.01-mm resolution |
| Change in the wound healing index | (1) at two weeks following surgery and (2) at one month following surgery. | Wound healing index will be recorded after surgery using the following criteria: score 1 = uneventful healing with no gingival edema, erythema, suppuration, patient discomfort, or flap dehiscence score 2 = uneventful healing with slight gingival edema, erythema, patient discomfort, or flap dehiscence, but no suppuration score 3 = poor wound healing with significant gingival edema, erythema, patient discomfort, flap dehiscence, or any suppuration |
| Change in post-operative pain level | at 2 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours following surgery and at 1-week after surgery | Using a 10 cm-visual analog scale |
| Patients' satisfaction with aesthetics | at three months post-surgery | Using a 10 cm-visual analog scale (VAS), patients' satisfaction with the aesthetic result will be recorded with 0 indicating very bad, 5 indicating average feelings and 10 indicating excellent result. |
| Change in root sensitivity | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) at 2 weeks post-surgery, (3) at 1 month post-surgery, (4) and at 3 months post-surgery | Using a 10 cm-visual analog scale (VAS), patients' perception of root sensitivity will be recorded with zero indicating no pain or sensitivity, 5 indicating moderate pain or sensitivity and 10 indicating worst pain or sensitivity possible. |
| Change in the thickness of the keratinized tissue | (1) one day before the surgery, (2) and at 3 months post-surgery | — |
Countries
Syria
Outcome results
None listed