MedPath

Comparison of Two Techniques in Gingival Recession Treatment. One-year Clinical Follow-up Study

Not Applicable
Completed
Conditions
Gingival Recession
Interventions
Procedure: E-CTG
Registration Number
NCT04109794
Lead Sponsor
Kırıkkale University
Brief Summary

42 patients were treated either with E-CTG (N=20) or SCAF (N=22). The recordings included clinician-based (recession depth, recession width, probing depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, tissue thickness, clinical attachment gain (CAG), root coverage (RC), keratinized tissue change (KTC)) and patient-based (wound healing index (WHI), dentine hypersensitivity (DH), tissue appearance, patient expectations and aesthetics) parameters that were taken at baseline, T1 (sixth week), T2 (sixth month) and T3 (first year).

Detailed Description

Not available

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status
COMPLETED
Sex
All
Target Recruitment
42
Inclusion Criteria
  • single Miller I GR defects ≤3mm at upper anterior or premolar teeth
  • systemically healthy
  • identifiable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ)
  • PD ≤3 mm
Exclusion Criteria
  • periodontal surgery experience in the past two years
  • excessive contacts
  • mobility
  • caries
  • loss of vitality
  • smoking
  • pregnancy

Study & Design

Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Design
PARALLEL
Arm && Interventions
GroupInterventionDescription
E-CTGE-CTGEnvelope connective tissue graft
SCAFE-CTGSemilunar connective tissue graft
Primary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
recession depth12 months

Distance between CEJ and GM

Secondary Outcome Measures
NameTimeMethod
keratinized tissue width12 months

distance between GM and MGJ

clinical attachment level12 months

distance between CEJ and base of gingival sulcus

recession width12 months

horizontal distance between two borders of recession at CEJ level

probing depth12 months

distance between GM and base of gingival sulcus

© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved by MedPath