Gingival Recession
Conditions
Keywords
Gingival recession, Non-carious cervical lesion, Connective tissue graft
Brief summary
This studies evaluate the efficacy of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) with or without connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of single maxillary recession associated to non carious cervical lesion (NCCL).
Interventions
PROCEDURECAF
After the cementum enamel junction (CEJ) was restorated, a split thickness flap was raised, coronally advanced and sutured to cover the recession
PROCEDURECAF + CTG
After the cementum enamel junction (CEJ) was restorated, a split thickness flap was raised. Then a connective tissue graft was harvested from the palate and sutured over the exposed root. Finally the flap was coronally advanced and sutured to cover the recession
Sponsors
University of Roma La Sapienza
University of Florence
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Age ≥18 years * No systemic diseases or pregnancy. * Self-reported smoking ≤ 10 cigarettes/day. * Full-mouth plaque score (FMPS) and full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS) ≤ 10% (measured at four sites per tooth). * Presence of single RT1 buccal gingival recessions ≥ 2 mm of depth located in the anterior area of the upper jaw (central and lateral incisors, canine, first and second pre-molars, first molar) and associated with aesthetic complains and or dental sensitivity. * Presence of NCCL associated with recession * No history of mucogingival or periodontal surgery at experimental sites.
Exclusion criteria
* Prosthetic crown at experimental teeth. * Gingival recessions presenting minimal amount (\< 1mm) of apico-coronal keratinized tissue (KT) extension apical to recession area.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recession Reduction | At 12 months | Difference between gingival recession at 12 months and baseline, measured with a periodontal probe. |
| Complete Root Coverage (CRC) | At 12 months | Absence or presence of gingival recession at 12 months follow-up. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Keratinized Tissue (KT) | Baseline - 6 and 12 months | Width of the keratinized gingiva measured in mm from the gingival margin to the muco-gingival-junction using a periodontal probe |
| KTgain | At 12 months | Gain of Keratinized Tissue measured as the difference between KT at 12 months and KT baseline |
| Gingival Recesión (REC) | Baseline - 6 and 12 months | The distance between the reconstructed cementum enamel junction and the gingival margin measured in mm with a periodontal probe |
| Root sensitivity | Baseline - 6 and 12 months | Toot sensitivity reported by the patient present or absent |
| Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES) | At 12 months | Overall esthetic score from 0 to 10 evaluated by the blinded examiner. Higher values represent a better outcome. (Pini-Prato et al. 2011) |
| SurTime | At surgery | Surgical Time in minutes from the end of anesthesia to the sutures |
| Anti-infammTab | 1 week post-surgery | Number of tablets of anti-inflammatory drug taken in the first week post-operatively by the patients. |
| DiscVAS | 1 week post-surgery | Post Operative Discomfort reported by the patients on a 0 to 10 Visual Analogue Scale. Higher values represent worse outcome. |
| AesthVAS | At 12 months | Aesthetic overall satisfaction reported by the patients on a 0 to 10 Visual Analogue Scale. Higher values represent better outcomes. |
| SensVAS | Baseline - 6 and 12 months | Toot sensitivity reported by the patient on a 0 to 10 Visual Analogue Scale. Higher values represent worse outcome. |
| Gingival Thickness (GT) | Baseline - 12 months | Gingival thickness in mm, measured with an endodontic file and a digital caliper. |
Outcome results
None listed