Evaluation of human recession defects treated with coronally advanced flaps and either enamel matrix derivative or connective tissue. Part 1: Comparison of clinical parameters. Root coverage in isolated gingival recessions using autograft versus allograft: a pilot study. Root coverage using the coronally positioned flap with or without a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Guided tissue regeneration versus coronally repositioned flap in the treatment of recession with double papillae. Subepithelial connective tissue grafts in the treatment of gingival recessions. A comparative study of 2 procedures. Mucogingival versus guided tissue regeneration procedures in the treatment of deep recession type defects. Coronally positioned flap procedures with or without a biodegradable membrane in the treatment of human gingival recession. A 6-year follow-up study. Use of platelet gel with connective tissue grafts for root coverage: a randomized-controlled trial. Comparison of 2 clinical techniques for treatment of gingival recession.
Recession defects around teeth have been treated with a variety of surgical techniques. Most of the literature suggests that the subepithelial connective tissue graft has the highest percentage of mean root coverage with the least variability. Previous studies have demonstrated that enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has the ability to improve clinical parameters. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of enamel matrix derivative placed under a coronally advanced flap to subepithelial connective tissue placed under a coronally advanced flap in patients with recession type defects.
                Twenty patients with incisors or premolars presenting with a facial recession of > or = 4 mm in contralateral quadrants of the same jaw were treated; 17 patients completed the study. One tooth in each patient was randomized to receive either a coronally advanced flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (control) or a coronally advanced flap with EMD (test). Clinical parameters measured at baseline and at 6, 9, and 12 months included amount of recession; width at the coronal extent of the gingival defect; width of keratinized tissue; probing depth; clinical attachment level; inflammation score; plaque score; plaque index; alveolar bone level; tissue texture and color; and patient perception of pain, bleeding, swelling, and sensitivity.
                Results for both the test and control groups were similar for all measured clinical parameters with the exception of early healing, self-reported discomfort, and the amount of keratinized tissue obtained. The coronally advanced flap with EMD was superior to the subepithelial connective tissue graft with regard to early healing and patient-reported discomfort, whereas the subepithelial connective tissue graft demonstrated greater amount of keratinized tissue during the 12-month evaluation period. However, both the test and control showed a significant increase in the amount of keratinized tissue at 9 and 12 months compared to baseline. No significant difference in the amount of root coverage was found between the test and control groups (n = 19; P = 0.82). On average, a gain of 4.5 mm (range 4 to 8 mm) tissue covering the previously exposed root surfaces was achieved with both treatment groups. The average percentages of root coverage for control and test groups were 93.8% and 95.1%, respectively. One hundred percent root coverage was obtained 89.5% of the time with the coronally advanced flap with EMD and 79% of the time with the subepithelial connective tissue graft.
                Based on the results of this investigation, the addition of EMD to the coronally advanced flap resulted in root coverage similar to the subepithelial connective tissue graft but without the morbidity and potential clinical difficulties associated with the donor site surgery. Different surgical techniques have been used to treat gingival recessions. This preliminary study compared clinical findings for the treatment of isolated gingival defects using a coronally positioned flap associated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or an acellular dermal matrix graft.
                Ten subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I or II defects were selected. The defects were > or =3.0 mm deep and were assigned randomly to the test group, which was treated with a coronally positioned flap associated with an acellular dermal matrix, or to the control group, which was treated with a coronally positioned flap associated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession depth (GRD), and width (KT) and thickness (GT) of the keratinized tissue were assessed at baseline and 6 months after the surgery.
                Mean root coverage was 50% in the test group (representing a gingival margin shift of 2.1 +/- 0.99 mm) and 79.5% in the control group (representing a gingival margin shift of 3.5 +/- 1.20 mm). These results were statistically different on intra- and intergroup comparisons (P <0.05). Between-group comparisons revealed statistically significantly greater gains in CAL, GRD, and GT in the control group (P < or =0.05); no differences were found for PD or KT (P > or =0.05).
                The coronally positioned flap associated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or an acellular dermal matrix graft was effective in root coverage. However, the coronally positioned flap associated with a connective tissue graft provided a more favorable clinical outcome. More expanded studies are needed to confirm the present findings. Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recession. This randomized clinical trial compared the coronally positioned flap (CPF) alone or in conjunction with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the treatment of gingival recession.
                Eleven non-smoking subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I recession defects were selected. The defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were randomly assigned to the test (CPF + SCTG) or control group (CPF alone). Recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized tissue (KT), and gingival/mucosal thickness (GT) were assessed at baseline and 6 months postoperatively.
                Recession depth was significantly reduced 6 months postoperatively (P<0.05) for both groups. Mean root coverage was 75% and 69% in the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in RD, PD, or CAL, either at baseline or at 6 months postoperatively. However, at 6 months postoperatively, the test group showed a statistically significant increase in KT and GT compared to the control group (P<0.05).
                The results indicate that both surgical approaches are effective in addressing root coverage. However, when an increase in gingival dimensions (keratinized tissue width, gingival/mucosal thickness) is a desired outcome, then the combined technique (CPF + SCTG) should be used. Twenty buccogingival recessions (3 mm deep) in twenty patients were selected and divided into two groups. Periodontal parameters were recorded (recession reduction, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width), and both groups were treated with regenerative therapy using a resorbable polylactic acid membrane. The test group was treated using the double papilla flap procedure, and the control group was treated using the coronally repositioned flap procedure. The results obtained at a 1-year follow-up were comparable between the test and control groups for recession reduction, probing depth, and clinical attachment level, although the test group obtained a very large amount of keratinized gingiva (+74.7%) compared to the control group. Thirty (30) class I and class II recessions in 30 subjects were treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft procedure. In one group (15 sites), the surgery was carried out in a traditional fashion: the epithelial collar of the graft was preserved and left exposed (CTG group). In the second group (15 sites), the epithelial collar of the graft was removed and the recession areas were conditioned with citric acid. The graft was then sutured and completely immersed under the facial flap which was coronally repositioned (CR group). Clinical assessments included probing depth, probing attachment level, surface area of the recession, and gingival width. These measurements were taken at baseline and at 6 months. In addition, an esthetic evaluation was done. The differences between treatments were not statistically significant except for the augmentation of gingiva (P < or = 0.05). Based on the midfacial measurements taken in the central area of the recession, the mean percentage of root coverage was 69.2%. In the CR group, 3 of the 15 recessions exhibited complete root coverage; the gingival augmentation was 65.5%. In the CTG group, 5 of the 15 recessions exhibited complete root coverage; the gingival augmentation was 94.4%. The mean surface area of root exposure was reduced from 13.82 mm2 and 13.67 mm2 to 2.15 mm2 and 2.34 mm2 for the CR group and the CTG group, respectively. One-hundred percent (100%) of good-to-moderate esthetic results were found by a panel of independent examiners; there was tendency toward better results in the CR group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of 3 surgical approaches in the treatment of deep recession type defects. Fifty-four (54) gingival recessions > or = 5 mm were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 treatment groups by blocking the prognostic variables. The first group was treated with a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure using a bioabsorbable membrane, the second with non-resorbable membrane, and the third with a mucogingival surgical approach consisting of a connective tissue graft combined with a coronally advanced flap (bilaminar technique). No differences, in terms of baseline oral hygiene and defect characteristics, were observed among the 3 groups showing an effective blocking approach. The 1-year results indicated that 1) all treatment approaches resulted in clinically significant root coverage and attachment gain; 2) a statistically significant treatment effect (P = 0.012, ANOVA) was observed comparing the bioabsorbable (4.9+/-0.3 mm), the non-resorbable (4.5+/-0.8 mm), and the bilaminar (5.3+/-0.7 mm) groups, in terms of root coverage; 3) the difference in terms of root coverage between the bilaminar and the non-resorbable membrane groups was statistically significant while differences between the 2 GTR groups or between the bilaminar and the bioabsorbable membrane groups did not reach statistical value; 4) the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions of complete successes showed a similar pattern; 5) no statistical difference was demonstrated in the amount of attachment gain among the 3 groups (P=0.73, ANOVA). A regression model showed that the amount of root coverage was significantly affected by the initial recession depth, the procedure and smoking habits: a poorer root coverage result is expected in case of shallow recession type defects, when either bioabsorbable (P < 0.05) or non-resorbable (P < 0.001) membranes are used instead of a bilaminar technique and if the patient smokes (P < 0.01). It was concluded that the mucogingival bilaminar technique is at least as effective as GTR procedures in the treatment of gingival recession > or = 4 mm and thus recession depth is not the parameter which influences the selection of the surgical procedure. Short-term data have indicated that treatment of gingival recession type defects by coronally positioned flap procedures with or without biodegradable membranes may result in similar treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to compare 12-month and 6-year follow-up results for these two treatment approaches.
                Twenty patients with buccal bilateral Miller Class I or Class II gingival recession defects in cuspids or bicuspids were treated randomly by coronally positioned flap alone (20 sites) or in combination with a biodegradable membrane (20 sites). Clinical measurements at baseline, 6, 12 months and 6 years included apical extent of gingival recession, width of the defect at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), width of keratinized tissue, as well as attachment level and probing depth. Eleven patients were available for the 6-year evaluation.
                At 12 months (20 sites), both treatments resulted in significant gain of root coverage (p<0.001), stable probing depth, and increased attachment level (p<0.001). The 6-year evaluation (11 sites) showed a significant gain of root coverage for the non-membrane group only (p<0.05). No significant between-group differences were detected for any other treatment variable regardless of smoking status (p>0.05). Compared with baseline, the 6-year results showed that seven membrane sites gained root coverage, three were unchanged and one lost root coverage. For the 11 non-membrane sites, eight gained root coverage, and three were unchanged. The five membrane and the 10 non-membrane sites exhibiting complete root coverage at 6 months were reduced to two and one, respectively, at the 6-year evaluation.
                The coronally positioned flap procedure offers a simple and reliable treatment alternative as a root coverage procedure in Class I and Class II recession type defects. Placement of a biodegradable membrane underneath the flap does not seem to improve neither the short- nor the long-term results. Long-term outcome stability seems to be critically dependent on a continuous follow-up program with re-instruction in non-traumatic brushing habits. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was speculated to be a promoter of periodontal regeneration. There are only a few clinical comparative studies using PRP in the treatment of gingival recession. Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare connective tissue graft (CTG)+PRP with CTG alone in the treatment of gingival recession.
                Forty patients with Miller I/II recessions were included. Each recession was randomly treated with either CTG+PRP or CTG. Clinical variables were recorded at baseline and at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Root coverage (RC) and attachment gain (AG) were also calculated.
                Probing depth, recession depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width and recession width (RW) were improved in both study groups. However, no difference was observed between groups, except RW. RW in the control group was statistically lower than the test group at all follow-up periods.
                Treatment of recession with CTG or a CTG-PRP combination resulted in favourable clinical outcomes. However, no difference could be found between CTG and CTG+PRP. Whether much longer follow-up studies with higher statistical power may change these results remains questionable. In early case studies, use of a collagen barrier as a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) material has shown particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage. The similarities between collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) have made collagen membrane an attractive and a possible alternative material for root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare these 2 techniques, SCTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession treatment.
                Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller's Class I or II (gingival recession > or = 3.0 mm) recession defects were treated either with SCTG or GTRC using a newly designed collagen membrane. Clinical parameters monitored included recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized gingiva (KG), attached gingiva (AG), and recession width (RW), each measured at the mid-buccal area to the nearest 0.5 mm. Measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months. A standard mucogingival surgical procedure was performed. Data were reported as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/residual maximal likelihood (REML)-based mixed effect model for multivariate analysis.
                No statistically significant differences were observed in RD, CAL, KG, and AG between test and control groups at either time period. However, SCTG showed significantly more residual PD and more RW gain when compared to GTRC at 6 months. Both treatments resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction of recession defects (2.5 mm and 2.8 mm), gain of CAL (2.8 mm and 2.3 mm), reduction of RW (1.9 mm and 2.7 mm), and increase of KG (0.7 mm and 1.1 mm) and AG (0.7 mm and 0.5 mm) for GTRC and SCTG, respectively, when comparing 6-month data to baseline. Mean root coverage of 73% (collagen membrane) and 84% (subepithelial connective tissue graft) was achieved.
                The 2 techniques are clinically comparable. Use of a modified collagen membrane to attain root coverage may alleviate the need for donor site procurement of connective tissue.
Subepithelial connective tissue grafts, coronally advanced flap alone or associated with other biomaterial and guided tissue regeneration may be used as root coverage procedures for the treatment of localised recession-type defects. In cases where both root coverage and gain in the keratinized tissue are expected, the use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts seems to be more adequate.Randomised controlled clinical trials are necessary to identify possible factors associated with the prognosis of each PPS procedure.The potential impact of bias on these outcomes is unclear.