Clinical Trial, Connective Tissue, Gingival Recession, Microsurgery
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of microsurgical and macrosurgical approaches on CPFs plus SCTGs for the treatment of localized gingival recession defects (Miller class I or II) over the course of 6 months based on clinical periodontal parameters, periodontal phenotypes, and the postoperative complaints and satisfaction levels of the patients. We hypothesized that root coverage achieved through microsurgery in Miller I or II gingival recessions would improve clinical periodontal outcomes and the periodontal phenotype, with greater postoperative comfort and aesthetic satisfaction in comparison with conventional macrosurgical techniques. Miller Class I and II gingival recession defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were selected and randomly assigned to receive micro or macrosurgical techniques. Both techniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Plaque and gingival indices, gingival recession depth and width, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, width of keratinized gingiva, aesthetic score and percentage of root coverage, postoperative complaints, and satisfaction of the participants completing the study were evaluated at follow-up 1st, 3rd and 6th months.
Interventions
PROCEDUREsurgical techniques in the treatment of localized gingival recession defects.
Micro or macrosurgical echniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft.
Sponsors
Kocaeli University
Istanbul Medipol University Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
\- All participants were: * adults aged 18 years or over * systemically and periodontally healthy * met the eligibility criteria for localized gingival recession of the canine or premolar teeth according to the Miller classification scheme
Exclusion criteria
\-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of root coverage | 6 months | The primary endpoint for efficacy of the gingival recession was the percentage of root coverage at baseline and 6-months postsurgery, as measured by gingival recession depth. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Changes in Gingival recession depth | 6 months | — |
| Changes in Gingival recession width | 6 months | — |
| Changes in Keratinized gingival width | 6 months | — |
| visual analog scale | 6 months | A visual analog scale was used to evaluate postoperative complaints regarding the recipient and donor sites according to graft size and postoperative satisfaction values (level of the gingival margin, gingival tissue color, dentin hypersensitivity, and root coverage) during the follow-up period. A 10 cm VAS, with none / unhappy at the left end and unbearable / happy at the right end was prepared for each patient. |
Outcome results
None listed