Background & Aim: Regarding to prevalence of gingival recession, esthetic and sensitivity aspect of denuded roots, A variety of surgical techniques have been used to cover recession type defects. This controlled study was designed to compare the clinical outcome following treatment of localized gingival recessions by a coronally advanced flap alone (CAF) or combined with a connective tissue graft (SeCTG).
Methods & Materials: Seven consecutively patients with buccal bilateral Miller Class I gingival recession in single-rooted teeth, having high level of oral hygiene, were participated in this study. The intraindividual split mouth design, randomized selection of treatment site and the blind calibrated evaluation, provided 17 sites in CAF group (test) and 17 sites in SeCTG group (control). Clinical measurements including recession height (RH), clinical attachment level (CAL), height of keratinized gingiva (KG) and probing depth (PD) were taken by means of Williams probe, Caliper and acrylic stent. The measurements were repeated at 3 month post-surgery. During surgical procedures, CAF was carried out in test group. Surgical technique in control group was similar except to connective tissue graft, harvested from palate, adapted on the root and then pedicle flap secured it. Clinical measurements were repeated at 3 month Post-surgery and areas of covered roots are calculated with AutoCad software.
Results: Both treatments resulted in a significant decrease in RD (2.65 ± 1 mm in SeCTG, P<0.0001 2.62± 0.82 mm in CAF, P<0.0001) and RW (1.73±1.47 mm in SeCTG, P<0.001 1.92 ± 2.02 mm in CAF, P<0.002) and gain of CAL (2.24 ± .94 mm in SeCTG, p<0.001 2.49± .97 mm in CAF, P<0.001). Area of covered root was 7.99± 4.99 mm2 in SeCTG (P<0.01) and 10.44± 7.04 mm2 in CAF (P<0.01) at 3 month evaluation. There is no difference between groups. PD and KG changes were small and not significant for either of the treatment. Based on mean of covered root as more or less than 12.5 mm2 (%67 of the most amount), %52.9 of root of the teeth in CAF group and only %17.6 in SeCTG group were covered (P<0.04).
Conclusion: The CAF operation offers a Predictable, simple and convenient approach as a root coverage procedure in Miller Class I recession defects. The combination of two methods doesn’t seem to improve the results.
J Dent Sch 2004 21(Special Issue): 720