Comparison of Two Techniques in Gingival Recession Treatment. One-year Clinical Follow-up Study

Kırıkkale University

Status: Completed

Conditions: Gingival Recession

Treatments: Procedure: E-CTG

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT04109794

SerdarEvginer

Details and patient eligibility

About

42 patients were treated either with E-CTG (N=20) or SCAF (N=22). The recordings included clinician-based (recession depth, recession width, probing depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, tissue thickness, clinical attachment gain (CAG), root coverage (RC), keratinized tissue change (KTC)) and patient-based (wound healing index (WHI), dentine hypersensitivity (DH), tissue appearance, patient expectations and aesthetics) parameters that were taken at baseline, T1 (sixth week), T2 (sixth month) and T3 (first year).

Enrollment: 42 patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 60 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• single Miller I GR defects ≤3mm at upper anterior or premolar teeth
• systemically healthy
• identifiable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ)
• PD ≤3 mm

Exclusion criteria

• periodontal surgery experience in the past two years
• excessive contacts
• mobility
• caries
• loss of vitality
• smoking
• pregnancy

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

42 participants in 2 patient groups

E-CTG

Active Comparator group

Description:

Envelope connective tissue graft

Treatment:

Procedure: E-CTG

SCAF

Active Comparator group

Description:

Semilunar connective tissue graft

Treatment:

Procedure: E-CTG