Journal of Dental Medicine

There are many researches evaluation different methods for covering the root surface. In the most of these studies, type I and II of Miller treatment had been searched. The purpose of this study was a comparison between connective tissue graft (CTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recession defects (Miller class III). Six patients, each contributing a pair of Miller class III buccal gingival recessions, were treated. The clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 1,2,4,6,12,18 months after surgery. Statistical analysis were performed using paired t-test between periods (baseline versus 6 months and baseline versus 18 months) within each treatment group and also between treatment groups before treatment and 6, 12 and 18 months after the treatment. The treatments were compared by a triple analysis of variance along the time (treatment, patient, time). Both CTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The CTG and GTR procedures had mean root coverage of 55% and 47.5% respectively, in the end of study. The CTG group was statistically better than GTR for recession depth, recession width and keratinized tissue width. Also, passing the time (18 months) as a distinct factor of treatment procedures was effective in increasing of clinical attachment level and keratinized tissue width.

Background and Aim: Increasing patient demands for esthetic, put the root coverage procedures in particular attention. Periodontal regeneration with GTR based root coverage methods is the most common treatment used. The purpose of this study was to compare guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with collagen membrane and a bone graft, with sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), in treatment of gingival recession.

Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial study, eleven healthy patients with no systemic diseases who had miller’s class I or II recession defects (gingival recession  2mm) were treated with SCTG or GTR using a collagen membrane and a bone graft. Clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 6 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Data were analyzed using independent t test with p<0.05 as the limit of significance.

Results: Both treatment methods resulted in a statistically significant reduction of recession depth (SCTG=2.3mm, GTR=2.1mm P<0.0001). CAL gain after 6 months was also improved in both groups (SCG= 2.5mm, GTR=2.1mm), compared to baseline (P<0.0001). No statistical differences were observed in RD, RW, CAL between test and control groups. Root coverage was similar in both methods (SCTG= 74.2%, GTR= 62.6%, P=0.87).

Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, the two techniques are clinically comparable. Therefore the use of collagen membrane and a bovine derived xenograft may alleviate the need for connective tissue graft.

Background and Aim: Several surgical approaches have been used to achieve root coverage. The Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft (SCTG) procedure has been shown to be a predictable means to treat gingival recession. Semilunar Coronally Positioned Flap (SCPF) is a simple mucogingival surgery to cover the exposed root surface without harvesting the palatal connective tissue. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of gingival recession therapy using SCTG and SCPF.

Materials and Methods: Forty Miller class I buccal gingival recessions (≥2mm) were selected. Recessions were randomly assigned to receive either the SCPF or SCTG. Recession Height (RH), Recession Width (RW), Width of Keratinized Tissue (WKT), Probing Depth (PD), Clinical Attachment Level (CAL), were measured at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The data were analyzed using independent t-test and Repeated Measure ANOVA.

Results: The average percentages of root coverage for SCPF and SCTG were 88% and 71%, respectively and the complete root coverage observed were 55% and 45%, respectively. There were no significance differences between the two groups with regard to RW, PD, CAL, WKT (except in the third month after surgery which was slightly greater in SCPF group). RH was significantly decreased from 2 to 6 months after surgery in SCPF group.

Conclusion: The findings from this study indicate that if the tissue thickness and initial width of keratinized tissue are sufficient, SCPF may be a good substitute for SCTG in treatment of Miller class I gingival recessions.