Tunnel Versus Coronally Advanced Flap Combined With a Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Gingival Recessions: Long Term (4 Years) Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Overview
- Phase
- Not Applicable
- Intervention
- Not specified
- Conditions
- Recession, Gingival
- Sponsor
- University of Liege
- Enrollment
- 40
- Primary Endpoint
- Mean Root Coverage change
- Status
- Completed
- Last Updated
- 6 years ago
Overview
Brief Summary
Few studies evaluate the outcomes beyond 1 year follow up for gingival recessions treatments using the tunnel technique in combination with connective tissue graft. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the 4-year outcomes of the CAF versus the pouch/tunnel (TUN) technique both associated with CTG.
Investigators
Dr. France LAMBERT
Prof.
University of Liege
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- •Miller's class I recessions;
- •Recession of 2 mm to 5 mm;
- •Maxillary incisors, canines or premolars;
- •Identifiable cementoenamel junction (CEJ);
- •Patients minimum 18 years old;
- •No/controlled periodontal disease;
- •ASA1 or ASA2 (American Society of Anesthesiologists) general health status;
- •Providing a signed informed consent form.
- •Exclusion criteria were:
- •Presence of cervical carious lesion;
Exclusion Criteria
- Not provided
Outcomes
Primary Outcomes
Mean Root Coverage change
Time Frame: at 6 months and 4 years.
The status of the Mean Root Coverage was recorded at 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits. The scale is in mm. More long it is, best it is Minest long it is, worst it is
Plaque Index Change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The plaque accumulation is assessed at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits using a 0-1 scoring system, 0 being the the highest value, 1 being the lowest result (0 =No detectible plaque ; 1 = Plaque can be seen by the naked eye)
Bleeding on probing score change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The bleeding tendency is assessed at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits as : 0 No bleeding when a periodontal probe is passed along the gingival margin adjacent to the implant; 1 Isolated bleeding spots visible ; 2 Blood forms a confluent red line on the margin; 3 Heavy or profuse bleeding.
Gingival thickness change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The gingival thickness was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits. The scale is in mm. More thick is it, best it is Minest thick it is, worst it is
Keratinised mucosa height change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The status of the keratinised mucosa height was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits. The scale is in mm. More large is it, best it is Minest large it is, worst it is
Recession width change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The status of the recession width was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits. The scale is in mm. More large is it, worst it is Minest large it is, best it is
PES Assessment change
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The PES was assessed according to the seven parameters described by Fürhauser (Fürhauser et al., 2005).
Secondary Outcomes
- Patient-related esthetic outcomes(4 years)