surgical techniques in the treatment of localized gingival recession defects.
ProcedureMicro or macrosurgical echniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft.
NCT Number: NCT04611282
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of microsurgical and macrosurgical approaches on CPFs plus SCTGs for the treatment of localized gingival recession defects (Miller class I or II) over the course of 6 months based on clinical periodontal parameters, periodontal phenotypes, and the postoperative complaints and satisfaction levels of the patients. We hypothesized that root coverage achieved through microsurgery in Miller I or II gingival recessions would improve clinical periodontal outcomes and the periodontal phenotype, with greater postoperative comfort and aesthetic satisfaction in comparison with conventional macrosurgical techniques. Miller Class I and II gingival recession defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were selected and randomly assigned to receive micro or macrosurgical techniques. Both techniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Plaque and gingival indices, gingival recession depth and width, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, width of keratinized gingiva, aesthetic score and percentage of root coverage, postoperative complaints, and satisfaction of the participants completing the study were evaluated at follow-up 1st, 3rd and 6th months.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–65 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
-
All participants were:
Exclusion criteria
-
Exclusion criteria
included the following:
Micro or macrosurgical echniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft.
Time frame: 6 months
The primary endpoint for efficacy of the gingival recession was the percentage of root coverage at baseline and 6-months postsurgery, as measured by gingival recession depth.
Time frame: 6 months
Time frame: 6 months
Time frame: 6 months
Time frame: 6 months
A visual analog scale was used to evaluate postoperative complaints regarding the recipient and donor sites according to graft size and postoperative satisfaction values (level of the gingival margin, gingival tissue color, dentin hypersensitivity, and root coverage) during the follow-up period. A 10 cm VAS, with "none" / "unhappy" at the left end and "unbearable" / "happy" at the right end was prepared for each patient.
Istanbul Medipol University Hospital
Other
Micro and Macrosurgical Treatment of Gingival Recessions: a Randomized Clinical Trial
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT05628155
Atrophy, Clinical Trial
Rennes, France
View Trial DetailsNCT07550751
Clinical Trial
Aswān, Egypt
View Trial DetailsNCT07081529
Clinical Trial, Dental Caries
View Trial DetailsNCT07017296
Clinical Trial
Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico
View Trial Details