Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT03767309
NCT03767309
Unknown
Not Applicable

Management of Miller Class I & II Gingival Recession Using Conventional Versus Abrasive De-epithelization of Palatal Graft

Halla Gamal Mohammed Esmail0 sites20 target enrollmentFebruary 1, 2019

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Gingival Recession
Sponsor
Halla Gamal Mohammed Esmail
Enrollment
20
Primary Endpoint
Direct Post-operative pain
Last Updated
7 years ago

Overview

Brief Summary

Management of Miller class I & II gingival recession using coronally advanced flap combined with conventional de-epithelialized free gingival graft versus coronally advanced flap combined with abrasive de-epithelized connective tissue graft Null hypothesis: In patients with Miller class I and II gingival recession, there is no difference between coronally advanced flap with conventional de-epithelialized free gingival graft and coronally advanced flap with abrasive de-epithelized connective tissue graft in recession depth reduction.

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
February 1, 2019
End Date
December 1, 2020
Last Updated
7 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
All

Investigators

Sponsor
Halla Gamal Mohammed Esmail
Responsible Party
Sponsor Investigator
Principal Investigator

Halla Gamal Mohammed Esmail

Dentist

Cairo University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Age ≥ 18 years.
  • Systemically healthy patients.
  • Miller's Class I and II recession defects with recession depth ≥ 2mm.
  • Presence of identifiable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ).
  • Clinical indication and/or patient request for recession coverage.
  • Smoking ≤ 10 cigarettes/day.
  • Cooperative patients able and accept to come for follow up appointments.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Pregnant females.
  • Smoking ˃ 10 cigarettes/day.
  • Contraindication for periodontal surgery.
  • Patients with poor oral hygiene.
  • Recession defects associated with caries or restoration as well as
  • Teeth with evidence of a pulpal pathology
  • Molar teeth

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Direct Post-operative pain

Time Frame: 7 days

Directly will be evaluated post-surgically with Visual Analogue Scale with numbers from 0 to 10 that given to the patients at 7 days follow-up visits.

Indirect Post-operative pain

Time Frame: 7 days

Indirectly will be evaluated on the basis of the mean consumption of analgesics

Secondary Outcomes

  • Surgical chair time(at the time of surgery)
  • Complete Root Coverage(6 months)
  • Recession depth.(6 months)
  • Gingival Recession Width(6 months)
  • Root Coverage Esthetic Score(6 months)
  • Width Of Keratinized Gingiva(6 months)
  • Gingival thickness(6 months)

Similar Trials