Gingival Recession Treatment Using Two Different Surgical Techniques
- Conditions
- Gingival RecessionRoot Planing
- Interventions
- Procedure: xenogeneic collagen matrix
- Registration Number
- NCT04966208
- Lead Sponsor
- Assiut University
- Brief Summary
Coronally the advanced flap is considered a predictable treatment of gingival recession but in certain situations, it needs a filler like subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG) which is considered as the gold standard treatment approach.
This randomized controlled trial compares the clinical benefits and effectiveness of a xenogenic collagen matrix (mucoderm, botiss, dental, Berlin, Germany) as a filler to the subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG).
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 24
- -The selected patients for this study are non-smokers, aged 18-60 years with multiple gingival recession (Miller class 1, or 2.) for more than two adjacent affected teeth with plaque score less than 25%
- -Patients with systemic complications, psychological problems, parafunctional habits, or patients presented with Mal-posed teeth, hypermobile teeth, teeth with Miller class 3 gingival recession were excluded from this study.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description root coverage surgeries using autologous connective tissue for treatment of gingival recession xenogeneic collagen matrix root coverage surgeries using tunneling technique of autologous connective tissue as a treatment of Miller class two gingival recession root coverage surgeries using xenogenic collagen matrix for treatment of gingival recession xenogeneic collagen matrix root coverage surgeries using tunneling technique of mucodrm membrane ; xenogeneic collagen matrix as a treatment of Miller class two gingival recession
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method The zone of keratinized gingiva 6 months after the surgery The distance from the tip of the papilla to the mucogingival junction minus the probing depth measured in mm using graduated periodontal probe.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Periodontal probing depth 6 months after the surgery measured from the gingival margin to the depth of the gingival sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
Patient satisfaction of the esthetics 6 months measured using the visual analog scale.
Clinical attachment loss 6 months after the surgery measured from the cementoenamel junction to the depth of the sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
Gingival recession 6 months after the surgery The depth measured from the gingival margin to the cementoenamel junction in mm.
Related Research Topics
Explore scientific publications, clinical data analysis, treatment approaches, and expert-compiled information related to the mechanisms and outcomes of this trial. Click any topic for comprehensive research insights.
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Assiut University
🇪🇬Assuit, Egypt
Assiut University🇪🇬Assuit, Egypt