Skip to main content
MedPathMedPath Home
Clinical Trials/NCT04109794
NCT04109794
Completed
Not Applicable

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

Kırıkkale University0 sites42 target enrollmentDecember 2012
Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to LinkedInShare to Reddit
ConditionsGingival Recession

Overview

Phase
Not Applicable
Intervention
Not specified
Conditions
Gingival Recession
Sponsor
Kırıkkale University
Enrollment
42
Primary Endpoint
recession depth
Status
Completed
Last Updated
6 years ago
OverviewInvestigatorsEligibility CriteriaOutcomesSimilar Trials

Overview

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).

Registry
clinicaltrials.gov
Start Date
December 2012
End Date
May 2014
Last Updated
6 years ago
Study Type
Interventional
Study Design
Parallel
Sex
All

Investigators

Sponsor
Kırıkkale University
Responsible Party
Principal Investigator
Principal Investigator

H. Gencay Keceli

Associate Professor

Kırıkkale University

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • •single Miller I GR defects ≤3mm at upper anterior or premolar teeth
  • •systemically healthy
  • •identifiable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ)

Exclusion Criteria

  • •periodontal surgery experience in the past two years
  • •excessive contacts
  • •loss of vitality
  • •pregnancy

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

recession depth

Time Frame: 12 months

Distance between CEJ and GM

Secondary Outcomes

  • keratinized tissue width(12 months)
  • clinical attachment level(12 months)
  • recession width(12 months)
  • probing depth(12 months)

Similar Trials

Completed
Not Applicable
Two Techniques for Root Coverage With a Xenogeneic Collagen MatrixGingival Recession
NCT02129504University of Sao Paulo20
Completed
Phase 1
Comparison of treatmentof gum problem associated with cervical abrasion using resin modified glass ionomer cement and palatal graft and palatal graft alone.
CTRI/2017/12/010890Gharat Mugdha Ranjankumar26
Completed
Not Applicable
Clinical Comparison Between Two Surgical Techniques for the Treatment of Gingival RecessionsGingival Recession
NCT01175720University of Sao Paulo15
Not yet recruiting
Not Applicable
MCAT Versus VISTA With Volume Stable Collagen Matrix in RT3 Gingival RecessionGingival Recession
NCT06433986Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences Rohtak34
Not yet recruiting
Not Applicable
To compare three gingival retraction system with aluminium chloride astringent.
CTRI/2021/05/033770Hardik Maradiya