COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT SURGICAL TECHNIQUES TO COVER RECEDED GUMS
Not Applicable
- Registration Number
- CTRI/2020/11/028793
- Lead Sponsor
- Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre
- Brief Summary
Not available
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- ot Yet Recruiting
- Sex
- Not specified
- Target Recruitment
- 0
Inclusion Criteria
Patients with Millerâ??s class I and II buccal recession defects on Anterior teeth
Probing depth >= 3mm
Clinical attachment level >= 5mm
Width of keratinized tissue >=2mm
Systemically healthy patients
Non-smokers
Exclusion Criteria
Pregnant and lactating women
Patients with any history of infectious disease
Use of Medicines or antibiotics known to interfere with periodontal health
or healing before 3months
History of periodontal treatment within 6 months.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- Interventional
- Study Design
- Not specified
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Probing depth (PD) <br/ ><br>Keratinized tissue width (KTW) <br/ ><br>Gingival recession depth (RD) <br/ ><br>Complete root coverage (CRC) <br/ ><br>Timepoint: From Baseline to 3 months <br/ ><br>From 3 months to 6 months <br/ ><br>From Baseline to 6 months <br/ ><br>
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Measures the pain perception by patient on a <br/ ><br>scale of one to tenTimepoint: Tenth day Postop <br/ ><br>One month Postop