Gingival Recession, Periodontal Diseases
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of the study is to compare the clinical effectiveness of gingival unit graft (GUG) and connective tissues graft (CTG) in Miller's class I and II gingival recession.
Detailed description
Patients who accept the study have provided information about the study and required a written informed consent form. The clinical effectiveness of two different periodontal surgical techniques (gingival unit graft and connective tissue graft) in gingival recessions will be evaluated. Periodontal measurements (gingival recession, keratinized gingiva height) and patient-reported outcomes (intra and post-operative pain, patient satisfaction and hypersensitivity) are defined.
Interventions
PROCEDURERoot coverage treatment
Gingival unit graft Connective tissue graft
Sponsors
Okan University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Systemic healthy individuals * Presence Miller's class I and II gingival recession in the anterior and premolar teeth
Exclusion criteria
* Age \<18 years * Pregnancy * Lactation * Any cardiovascular, renal or hepatic conditions * History of periodontal surgery * Tooth mobility * Presence of probing depth \>3 mm and caries or restorations in the teeth undergoing treatment
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change from Baseline Gingival Recession Depth at 6 month | Baseline and month 6. | The gingival recession depth consists of the distance from the cement-enamel junction to the most apical extension of the gingival margin. The measurement is recorded in millimeters. Change= (6 month score-baseline score) |
| Change from Baseline Keratinized Gingiva Height at 6 month | Baseline and month 6. | Keratinized gingiva height, measured as the distance from the gingival margin to the mucogingival line. The measurement is recorded in millimeters. Change= (6 month score-baseline score) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change from Baseline Root Hypersensitivity at 6 month | Baseline and month 6. | Root hypersensitivity at baseline and post-operative 6 month utilizing a visual numerical scale (VNS) test are defined. Possible scores range from (0=no sensitive and 10= worst possible sensitive). Change= (6 month score-baseline score) |
| Change from Baseline Patient Satisfaction at 6 month | Baseline and month 6. | The patient satisfaction with the gingiva position, structure and color of the gingival recessions sites utilizing a VNS test (0=not satisfied and 10=very satisfied) are defined. Possible scores range from 0 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied). Change= (6 month score-baseline score) |
| Change from Baseline Pain at 1 week | Baseline and week 1. | Pain perception of the surgery at intra and post-operative period (week 1) utilizing a VNS test are defined. Possible scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Change= (1 week score-baseline score) |
| Change from Baseline Pain at 2 week | Baseline and week 2. | Pain perception of the surgery at intra and post-operative period (week 2) utilizing a VNS test are defined. Possible scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Change= (2 week score-baseline score) |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed