Gingival Recession Treatment Using Two Different Surgical Techniques

Root Coverage Using Tunneling Technique of Xenogenic Collagen Matrix vs. Autologous Connective Tissue as a Treatment of Miller Class Two Gingival Recession (RCT Study)

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT04966208

Enrollment

Registered

2021-07-19

Start date

2020-09-01

Completion date

2021-06-15

Last updated

2021-07-19

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

Conditions

Gingival Recession, Root Planing

Keywords

root coverage, mucoderm, connective tissue, grafts

Brief summary

Coronally the advanced flap is considered a predictable treatment of gingival recession but in certain situations, it needs a filler like subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG) which is considered as the gold standard treatment approach. This randomized controlled trial compares the clinical benefits and effectiveness of a xenogenic collagen matrix (mucoderm, botiss, dental, Berlin, Germany) as a filler to the subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG).

Interventions

PROCEDURExenogeneic collagen matrix

xenogeneic collagen matrix called mucoderm used for root coverage for treatment of gingival recession instead of harvesting from the patients connective tissue

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 60 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* -The selected patients for this study are non-smokers, aged 18-60 years with multiple gingival recession (Miller class 1, or 2.) for more than two adjacent affected teeth with plaque score less than 25%

Exclusion criteria

* -Patients with systemic complications, psychological problems, parafunctional habits, or patients presented with Mal-posed teeth, hypermobile teeth, teeth with Miller class 3 gingival recession were excluded from this study.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
The zone of keratinized gingiva	6 months after the surgery	The distance from the tip of the papilla to the mucogingival junction minus the probing depth measured in mm using graduated periodontal probe.

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Periodontal probing depth	6 months after the surgery	measured from the gingival margin to the depth of the gingival sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
Clinical attachment loss	6 months after the surgery	measured from the cementoenamel junction to the depth of the sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
Gingival recession	6 months after the surgery	The depth measured from the gingival margin to the cementoenamel junction in mm.
Patient satisfaction of the esthetics	6 months	measured using the visual analog scale.

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026