Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of microsurgical and macrosurgical approaches on CPFs plus SCTGs for the treatment of localized gingival recession defects (Miller class I or II) over the course of 6 months based on clinical periodontal parameters, periodontal phenotypes, and the postoperative complaints and satisfaction levels of the patients. We hypothesized that root coverage achieved through microsurgery in Miller I or II gingival recessions would improve clinical periodontal outcomes and the periodontal phenotype, with greater postoperative comfort and aesthetic satisfaction in comparison with conventional macrosurgical techniques. Miller Class I and II gingival recession defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were selected and randomly assigned to receive micro or macrosurgical techniques. Both techniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Plaque and gingival indices, gingival recession depth and width, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, width of keratinized gingiva, aesthetic score and percentage of root coverage, postoperative complaints, and satisfaction of the participants completing the study were evaluated at follow-up 1st, 3rd and 6th months.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
All participants were:
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria included the following:
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
17 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal