Skip to content

Comparative Evaluation of Novel 3D Tunneling Technique Versus Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel (MCAT) With Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Multiple RT2 Gingival Recession

Comparative Evaluation of Novel 3D Tunneling Technique Versus Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel (MCAT) With Connective Tissue Graft in the Management of Multiple RT2 Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07526259
Enrollment
36
Registered
2026-04-13
Start date
2025-05-10
Completion date
2027-05-10
Last updated
2026-04-13

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

Conditions

Gingival Recession

Brief summary

Defects associated with severe interdental hard and soft tissue loss are challenging to the periodontist, mainly due to the increased avascular surface and the reduced interproximal periosteal bed. Reports on the surgical techniques used to address recession type 2 or 3 defects mostly showed statistics on the mid-facial root coverage that yielded outcomes that do not encompass coverage of the interdental exposed root surface which highlights areas of controversy in their use for papilla reconstruction. Several case reports and clinical studies have shown encouraging results, but the long-term data are not available in the literature yet. The novel 3D tunneling (3DT) method achieved significant clinical improvement with long term stability in a recent case series. However, additional research is needed to validate 3DT for its routine clinical use. Moreover, the 3DT method achieved a decrease in the lingual recession depth which should be pointed out that the technique also addresses lingual recession.

Interventions

PROCEDURERoot coverage

The novel 3D tunneling (3DT) method achieved significant clinical improvement with long term stability in a recent case series. However, additional research is needed to validate 3DT for its routine clinical use.

Sponsors

Cairo University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Buccal and lingual multiple adjacent recession defects classified as Cairo et al RT2. * Age ≥18 years * Full mouth plaque index score less than 20% O'Leary et al. 1972 * Patients with healthy systemic condition * Clinical indication and/or patient request for root coverage

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with systemically compromised health * Periodontal surgical treatment during the previous 24 months in the involved site * Pregnant or lactating mothers * Smokers * Non-compliant patients * Restored teeth * Non-carious cervical lesion

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Gingival recession depthFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Gingival recession depth lingualFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Clinical attachment level (CAL) buccal and lingualFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Periodontal probing depth (PPD) buccal and lingualFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Width of keratinized tissue (KTW)From enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Papilla tip to contact point distanceFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Mean root coverageFrom enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 year
Root coverage esthetic score (RES)From enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 yearThe RES system evaluates five variables 1 year following surgery: GM, marginal tissue contour (MTC), soft tissue texture (STT), MGJ alignment, and gingival color (GC). GM. Zero points = failure of root coverage (gingival margin apical or equal to the baseline recession); 3 points = partial root coverage; 6 points = CRC. MTC. Zero points = irregular gingival margin (does not follow the CEJ); 1 point = proper marginal contour/scalloped gingival margin (follows the CEJ). STT. Zero points = scar formation and/or keloid-like appearance; 1 point = absence of scar or keloid formation. MGJ. Zero points = MGJ not aligned with the MGJ of adjacent teeth; 1 point = MGJ aligned with the MGJ of adjacent teeth. GC. Zero points = color of tissue varies from gingival color at adjacent teeth; 1 point = normal color and integration with the adjacent soft tissues. Thus, the ideal esthetic score is 10.
Post operative pain using Visual analogue scale (VAS)From enrollment to the end of treatment at 1 yearPain score will be reported by the patient directly through Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (between 0 and 10.0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 5: moderate pain, 10: severe pain) will be recorded at day 3, day 7, and day 14.

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 14, 2026