Coronally positioned flap for root coverage in smokers and non-smokers: stability of outcomes between 6 months and 2 years

BACKGROUND: Smoking adversely affects the short-term outcomes of coronally positioned flap (CPF) root coverage procedures, but the long-term stability of this procedure in smokers has not been studied. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of smoking on the long-term outcomes of CPF in recession treatment. METHODS: CPF was used to treat a Miller Class I defect in a maxillary canine or premolar in 10 current smokers (> or =10 cigarettes daily for > or =5 years) and 10 non-smokers (never smokers). At baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months, clinical parameters, including probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession depth (RD), and width of keratinized tissue (KT), were determined. RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed that CPF failed to maintain the gingival margin at the initially achieved position. RD significantly increased in smokers (from 0.84 +/- 0.49 to 1.28 +/- 0.58 mm) and in non-smokers (from 0.22 +/- 0.29 to 0.50 +/- 0.41 mm) between 6 and 24 months. Further analysis showed that 50% of smokers and 10% of non-smokers lost between 0.5 and 1.0 mm of root coverage in the same period. Intergroup analysis showed that smokers had significantly greater residual recession (P = 0.001) at 24 months. Both smokers and non-smokers lost CAL and experienced decreases in KT. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term stability of CPF outcomes is less than desirable, particularly in smokers. Two years after a CPF procedure, smokers have significantly greater residual recession compared to non-smokers both statistically and clinically.     

Subepithelial connective tissue graft for root coverage in smokers and non-smokers: a clinical and histologic controlled study in humans

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate root coverage of gingival recessions and to compare graft vascularization in smokers and non-smokers. METHODS: Thirty subjects, 15 smokers and 15 non-smokers, were selected. Each subject had one Miller Class I or II recession in a non-molar tooth. Clinical measurements of probing depth (PD), relative clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and width of keratinized tissue (KT) were determined at baseline and 3 and 6 months after surgery. The recessions were treated surgically with a coronally positioned flap associated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. A small portion of this graft was prepared for immunohistochemistry. Blood vessels were identified and counted by expression of factor VIII-related antigen-stained endothelial cells. RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed that after 6 months there a was gain in CAL, a decrease in GR, and an increase in KT for both groups (P <0.05), whereas changes in PD were not statistically significant. Smokers had less root coverage than non-smokers (58.02% +/- 19.75% versus 83.35% +/- 18.53%; P <0.05). Furthermore, the smokers had more GR (1.48 +/- 0.79 mm versus 0.52 +/- 0.60 mm) than the non-smokers (P <0.05). Histomorphometry of the donor tissue revealed a blood vessel density of 49.01 +/- 11.91 vessels/200x field for non-smokers and 36.53 +/- 10.23 vessels/200x field for smokers (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Root coverage with subepithelial connective tissue graft was negatively affected by smoking, which limited and jeopardized treatment results.     

Root coverage outcome may be affected by heavy smoking: a 2-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND: Although subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) has been reported to be a predictable procedure for root coverage, the impact of smoking on the long-term outcome of periodontal plastic surgery is unclear. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of smoking, on a long-term basis, on the stability of gingival tissue following CTG treatment of gingival recession. METHODS: Twenty-two defects were treated by CTG in canine and premolar Miller Class I and II gingival recessions (11 smokers and 11 non-smokers). The following clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery: plaque and gingival indexes, extension of gingival recession (GR), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival thickness. Individuals smoking > or =20 cigarettes/day for > or =5 years were considered smokers. RESULTS: Data analysis demonstrated that both groups presented similar plaque and gingival indexes (P >0.05), and an intragroup analysis showed that CTG was able to promote root coverage and increase gingival thickness in both groups over time (P <0.05). However, at 24 months postoperatively, statistical analysis showed that smokers presented poorer outcomes with regard to PD, GR, and CAL (P <0.05); in addition, a more satisfactory stabilization of the gingival tissue was found in the non-smoker group. CONCLUSION: Smoking may represent a challenge to root coverage outcome for CTG because smoking significantly affected the stability of gingival tissue over time.     

Root coverage using the coronally positioned flap with or without a subepithelial connective tissue graft

BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recession. This randomized clinical trial compared the coronally positioned flap (CPF) alone or in conjunction with a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the treatment of gingival recession. METHODS: Eleven non-smoking subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I recession defects were selected. The defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were randomly assigned to the test (CPF + SCTG) or control group (CPF alone). Recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized tissue (KT), and gingival/mucosal thickness (GT) were assessed at baseline and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Recession depth was significantly reduced 6 months postoperatively (P<0.05) for both groups. Mean root coverage was 75% and 69% in the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in RD, PD, or CAL, either at baseline or at 6 months postoperatively. However, at 6 months postoperatively, the test group showed a statistically significant increase in KT and GT compared to the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that both surgical approaches are effective in addressing root coverage. However, when an increase in gingival dimensions (keratinized tissue width, gingival/mucosal thickness) is a desired outcome, then the combined technique (CPF + SCTG) should be used.     

Smoking may affect root coverage outcome: a prospective clinical study in humans

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking has been shown to negatively influence healing following periodontal therapeutic procedures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of smoking on clinical outcome of root coverage following subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) surgery. METHODS: Eighteen defects were treated in 15 patients (seven smokers and eight non-smokers) who presented canine and pre-molar Miller Class I and II recessions. CTG was performed and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline, and 30, 60, 90, and 120 days after surgery. Clinical measurements included plaque and gingival indexes, gingival recession, probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival thickness, and keratinized tissue width. RESULTS: Intragroup analysis showed that CTG was able to promote root coverage, increase gingival thickness, and improve clinical attachment level in both groups (P < 0.05). On the other hand, intergroup analysis demonstrated that smokers presented with a lower percentage of root coverage (58.84% +/- 13.68% versus 74.73% +/- 14.72%), less clinical attachment level gain (2.54 +/- 0.79 mm versus 2.00 +/- 1.04 mm), and deeper probing depths (1.56 +/- 0.53 mm versus 2.35 +/- 0.67 mm) than non-smokers (P < 0.05). Moreover, 4 months after CTG, smokers presented more keratinized tissue compared to non-smokers (3.30 +/- 0.86 mm versus 4.50 +/- 1.16 mm) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that cigarette consumption may present a negative impact on root coverage outcome by CTG and, therefore, may represent one more challenge for periodontal plastic therapy.     

Gingival recession treatment with connective tissue grafts in smokers and non-smokers

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking can adversely affect the results of many periodontal procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether cigarette smoking affects wound healing of subepithelial connective tissue grafts. METHODS: Seventeen systemically healthy patients with 22 Miller Class I or II mucogingival defects were divided into a non-smoker group or smoker group. Patients were regarded as smokers if they reported smoking 10 to 20 cigarettes per day. The following parameters were documented at the surgery date and 3 and 6 months postoperatively: recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), keratinized gingiva height measured apico-coronally (KG), relative attachment level (RAL), probing depths (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and the full-mouth plaque score (FMP). Salivary cotinine samples were taken at the surgery to confirm the smoking history and to quantify cigarette use. RESULTS: Non-smokers (0- to 10-ng/ml cotinine level) healed with statistically more recession coverage than the smokers (>10-ng/ml cotinine level) (98.3% versus 82.3%, respectively; P=0.001). Six months postoperatively, the non-smokers healed with a 0.2-mm mean recession depth compared to a 1.0-mm mean recession depth for the smokers. This difference in recession depth was statistically significant (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Root coverage with connective tissue grafts appears to be negatively associated with cigarette smoking. Smokers should consider smoking cessation or reducing the use of cigarettes for optimal results with connective tissue grafts.     

Coronally positioned flap with or without acellular dermal matrix graft in the treatment of Class I gingival recessions: a randomized controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the treatment of Class I gingival recessions by coronally positioned flap with or without acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADM). METHODS: Thirteen patients with comparable bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions (> or = 3.0 mm) were selected. The defects were randomly assigned to one of the treatments: coronally positioned flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM group) or coronally positioned flap alone (CPF group). The clinical parameters included: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), recession height (RH), recession width (RW), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI). The measurements were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. RESULTS: The mean baseline recession was 3.4 mm and 3.5 mm for ADM group and CPF group, respectively. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant root coverage (P < 0.01), reaching an average of 2.6 mm (76%) in the ADM group and 2.5 mm (71%) in the CPF group. The difference in recession reduction between treatments was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatments in PD, CAL, RH, RW, and HKT. However, the mean TKT gain was 0.7 mm for the ADM group and 0.2 mm for the CPF group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that both techniques could provide significant root coverage in Class I gingival recessions; however, a greater keratinized tissue thickness can be expected with ADM.     

Long-term stability of the mucogingival complex following guided tissue regeneration in gingival recession defects

Abstract. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the stability of soft tissue conditions in gingival recession defects treated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR). The study population was selected among those patients who had been treated with GTR procedures for Miller's class I or II, deep (≥3 mm), buccal gingival recession defects. Defects were included only when they had revealed recession depth reduction ≥2 mm and root coverage ≥60% at 6 months following GTR treatment. These defects were regarded as successfully treated and scheduled for further monitoring. 20 patients, 11 male and 9 female, aged 23 to 57 years (mean age: 33.2 years), each contributing 1 defect, were selected. 9 patients were smokers (≥10 cigarette per day). Recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and width of keratinized gingiva (KG) were assessed immediately before surgery at 6 months post-surgery (baseline examination), and at 4 years post-surgery (4-year examination). At baseline examination. RD reduction was 3.6±0.9 mm (mean root coverage: 80%). CAL gain amounted to 4.2± 1.3 mm. 60% of the defects showing CAL gain ≥4 mm. KG increased from 1.9±1.2 mm at presurgery examination to 3.1±0.9 mm at baseline examination. At 4-year examination, no significant changes from baseline RD, CAL and KG recordings were observed. Differences in baseline-4 year changes between smokers and non-smokers were not statistically significant. The results of the present study demonstrate that clinical outcome achieved following GTR procedure in gingival recession defects can be maintained over periods up to 4 years.     

Factors affecting the outcomes of coronally advanced flap root coverage procedure

BACKGROUND: The coronally advanced flap (CAF) has been used to treat gingival recession. However, the final outcomes (percentage of root coverage) vary from case to case. Hence, the purpose of this study was to analyze the factors that may affect the results of CAF root coverage procedures. METHODS: Twenty-three systemically healthy patients (mean age, 43.8 +/- 11.9 years) each with one Miller's Class I buccal recession defect were included. Baseline clinical parameters included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI). CAF root coverage procedures were performed to correct the recession defects. Patients were followed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-surgery, at which time wound healing index (WHI) and other measurements were recorded. RESULTS: The mean baseline RD was 2.9 +/- 0.4 mm; RW, 3.4 +/- 0.6 mm; WKT, 2.7 +/- 1.3 mm; and GT, 1.1 +/- 0.3 mm. At mid-buccal, the mean CAL was 4.5 +/- 0.8 mm. Six months after surgery, the average RC was 82.3% +/- 24.7%; RD, 0.5 +/- 0.7 mm; RW, 0.4 +/- 0.9 mm; WKT, 3.2 +/- 0.9 mm; and GT, 1.5 +/- 0.5 mm. At mid-buccal, the mean CAL was 1.8 +/- 1.1 mm. From baseline to the 6-month follow-up, the changes of RC, RD, RW, WKT, GT, and CAL showed statistical significance (P < 0.05). Fourteen patients achieved 100% RC. The mean RC in partial coverage cases was 54.8% +/- 16.8%. Analysis revealed that an initial GT thicker than 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm was associated with complete root coverage at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CAF is a predictable procedure to treat Miller's Class I mucogingival defects. Initial GT was the most significant factor associated with complete root coverage.     

EMD or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of single gingival recessions: a pilot study

Alkan EA, Parlar A. EMD or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of single gingival recessions: a pilot study. J Periodont Res 2011; 46: 637–642. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S Background and Objective: The combination of EMD with root‐coverage procedures has been shown to promote periodontal regeneration on the exposed root surface. The aim of this randomized clinical study was to compare the efficacy of EMD with connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of Miller Class I and Class II single recessions in a split‐mouth design. Material and methods: The study included 12 systemically healthy patients, each with two single bilateral gingival recession defects (24 recessions). One recession defect in each patient was treated with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) + EMD procedure and the other recession defect was treated with the CTG + EMD procedure, in a split‐mouth study design. The parameters recession depth (RD), recession width, percentage of root coverage, height of keratinized tissue (HKT), gingival thickness, probing depth and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline. All parameters, except for gingival thickness, were remeasured at 6 and 12 mo. Results: The mean percentage root coverage at the final evaluation was 92 ± 14% for the CAF + EMD group and 89 ± 14% for the CAF + CTG group. Both treatments resulted in statistically significant (p < 0.05) decreases in RD and recession width, and increases in HKT, at 6 and 12 mo. There was also a significant decrease in the probing depth and a significant gain in the CAL for both groups. The probing depth was statistically higher in the CAF + CTG group than in the CAF + EMD group at 6 mo (p < 0.05), while the CAL was statistically lower in the CAF + EMD group than in the CAF + CTG group at 6 and 12 mo (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that both CAF + EMD and CAF + CTG procedures were similarly successful in treating Miller Class I and Class II single gingival recession defects.     

The clinical effect of acellular dermal matrix on gingival thickness and root coverage compared to coronally positioned flap alone

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, blinded, clinical investigation was to compare the coronally positioned flap (CPF) plus an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft to CPF alone to determine their effect on gingival thickness and percent root coverage. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects with one Miller Class I or II buccal recession defect of > or = 3 mm were treated with a CPF plus ADM or a CPF alone. Multiple additional recession sites were treated with the same flap procedure, and all sites were studied for 6 months. Tissue thickness was measured at the sulcus base and at the mucogingival junction of all teeth, with an SDM ultrasonic gingival thickness meter. RESULTS: For the ADM sites, mean initial recession of 3.46 mm was reduced to 0.04 mm for defect coverage of 3.42 mm or 99% (P < 0.05). For the CPF group, mean initial recession of 3.27 mm was reduced to 1.08 mm for defect coverage of 2.19 mm or 67% (P < 0.05). The difference between ADM and CPF groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Marginal soft-tissue thickness was increased by 0.40 mm (P < 0.05) for the ADM group, whereas the CPF group remained essentially unchanged. Keratinized tissue was increased for the ADM group by 0.81 mm (P < 0.05), whereas the CPF group increased by 0.33 mm (P > 0.05). No additional root coverage was gained due to creeping attachment between 2 and 6 months for either group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a CPF plus an ADM allograft significantly increased gingival thickness when compared with a CPF alone. Recession defect coverage was significantly improved with the use of ADM.     

Gingival recession treatment: guided tissue regeneration with bioabsorbable membrane versus connective tissue graft

BACKGROUND: Gingival recession represents a significant concern for patients and a therapeutic problem for clinicians. Several techniques have been proposed to achieve root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) procedure in comparison to connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession defects. METHODS: Twelve patients, each contributing a pair of Miller Class I or II buccal gingival recessions, were treated. In each patient one randomly chosen defect received a poly(lactic acid)-based bioabsorbable membrane, while the paired defect received a CTG. Clinical recordings included oral hygiene standards and gingival health, recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and keratinized tissue width (KT). RESULTS: Mean RD statistically significantly decreased from 2.5 mm presurgery to 0.5 mm with GTR (81% root coverage), and from 2.5 mm to 0.1 mm with CTG (96% root coverage), at 6 months postsurgery. Prevalence of complete root coverage was 58% for the GTR group and 83% for the CTG group. Mean CAL gain was 2.0 mm for the GTR group and 2.2 mm for the CTG group. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed for changes in RD, RW, PD, CAL, and KT. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of human gingival recession defects by means of either GTR or CTG results in clinically and statistically significant improvement of the soft tissue conditions of the defect when pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared. Although differences between CTG and GTR in mean root coverage and prevalence of complete coverage consistently favored the CTG procedure, the differences in measurements were not statistically significant.     

Relative connective tissue graft size affects root coverage treatment outcome in the envelope procedure

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the correlation between the connective tissue graft size and the percentage of root coverage. METHODS: Fifteen patients with Miller Class I or II recession defects (one tooth/defect per patient) were treated using an envelope connective tissue graft procedure. Clinical parameters including gingival recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KW), and the probing depth (PD) were measured. Visible denuded area (VDA) and graft tissue area (GTA) were indirectly measured in mm2 using computer software. Graft tissue thickness (GTT) and graft tissue width (GTW) were also measured. All clinical parameters and VDA were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months. The RD, CAL, KW, PD, and VDA were evaluated by Friedman test. The correlation between the percentage of root coverage (PRC) and factors related to graft size were determined by Spearman rank correlation and nonparametric regression analysis. RESULTS: The percent of root coverage at 3 and 6 months postoperatively was statistically significantly associated with the GTA:VDA ratio (P<0.01); it did not correlate with GTA, GTT, or RD, and was inconsistently correlated to GTW and VDA. In patients who had 100% root coverage, the GTA:VDA ratio ranged between 10.92:1 and 21.95:1; in patients with <100% root coverage, the ratio was between 4.54:1 and 11.06:1. CONCLUSION: The GTA:VDA ratio should be at least 11:1, which is a significant factor for optimal root coverage result in the envelope procedure.     

Use of anorganic bovine-derived hydroxyapatite matrix/cell-binding peptide (P-15) in the treatment isolated Class I gingival recession of defects: a pilot study

Background: This study clinically evaluates the treatment outcome of coronally positioned flap (CPF) associated with anorganic bone mineral/peptide‐15 (ABM/P‐15) in terms of root coverage and gain in clinical attachment level (CAL) and bone height (BH) in isolated Class I gingival recession (GR) defects. Methods: Fifteen healthy subjects with bilateral and comparable Miller Class I GR defects were selected. The defects were randomly assigned either to the test group (CPF with ABM/P‐15) or to the control group (CPF only). Results: Six months after surgery, a reduction in GR was observed in the test and control groups (2.20 ± 0.54 and 2.40 ± 0.80 mm, respectively; P <0.001) with no intergroup difference (P = 0.33). Complete root coverage was obtained in 10 and 11 defects in the test and control groups, respectively. In the test group 85.56% ± 21.69% and in the control group 90.00% ± 18.42% of the exposed root was covered. Although not clinically significant, a statistically greater increase in the gingival thickness was observed in the test group (0.03 mm; P = 0.01). CAL gain was significant in both groups (test group, 1.93 ± 0.44 mm; control group, 2.13 ± 1.15 mm; P <0.001) with no intergroup difference (P = 0.42). Intergroup and intragroup differences in width of keratinized tissue and BH were not significant (P ≥0.16). In the test group, a positive correlation was observed between BH at baseline and the reduction in GR (r = 0.56; P = 0.03). Conclusions: In isolated Class I GR defects, CPF associated with ABM/P‐15 provided no significant difference in root coverage and CAL gain compared to CPF alone. In the ABM/P‐15 group, a greater reduction in GR was associated with higher bone level at baseline.     

Root surface biomodification with EDTA for the treatment of gingival recession with a semilunar coronally repositioned flap

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the outcome of gingival recession therapy using the semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SCRF) with or without EDTA application for root surface biomodification. METHODS: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I buccal gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) were selected. Thirty teeth with recessions were assigned randomly to receive the semilunar coronally repositioned flap with (SCRF-E group) or without (SCRF group) the application of an EDTA gel. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width (WKT) and thickness of keratinized tissue, probing depth, and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and 6 months post-surgery. Patient perception of root sensitivity and postoperative pain also was evaluated. RESULTS: Both treatments yielded significant improvements in terms of RH and RW decrease and CAL gain compared to baseline values. For SCRF-E and SCRF, the average root coverage was 70.2% and 90.1%, respectively (P = 0.01), and the complete root coverage was 40.0% and 66.7%, respectively. Only the SCRF group had a significant (P <0.05) increase in WKT. The SCRF group showed a greater reduction (P <0.05) in RW and RH compared to the SCRF-E group. No patient in either group reported any pain during the postoperative course; however, 6 months later, patients in the SCRF-E group complained more of residual or new root sensitivity compared to patients in the SCRF group. CONCLUSION: The use of EDTA gel as a root surface biomodifier agent negatively affected the outcome of root coverage with the SCRF.     

The effect of platelet-rich plasma on the coronally advanced flap root coverage procedure: a pilot human trial

BACKGROUND: Coronally advanced flap (CAF) has been shown to effectively treat gingival recession. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), containing autologous growth factors, has been shown to promote soft tissue healing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of PRP in combination with CAF. METHODS: Twenty-four systemically healthy patients participated in this study. A single Miller's Class I buccal recession defect per patient was treated. These patients were randomly assigned into CAF or PRP + CAF groups. Clinical parameters included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), gingival thickness (GT), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), wound healing index (WHI), and gingival index (GI). PRP was prepared from whole blood drawn prior to surgery and applied to root surfaces. Patients were followed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study. The RD at 24 weeks was significantly reduced from 2.9 +/- 0.5 to 0.5 +/- 0.6 mm in the CAF group (P < 0.05) and from 2.8 +/- 0.2 to 0.5 +/- 0.7 mm in the PRP + CAF group (P < 0.05). The mean root coverage was 83.5% +/- 21.8% in the CAF group and 81.0% +/- 28.7% in the CAF + PRP group (P > 0.05). Fourteen out of 23 patients (60.9%) experienced 100% root coverage at the 24-week postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this pilot study, the application of PRP in CAF root coverage procedure provides no clinically measurable enhancements on the final therapeutic outcomes of CAF in Miller's Class I recession defects.     

Sling and tag suturing technique for coronally advanced flap

The coronally advanced flap (CAF), either by itself or combined with other soft tissue grafts, provides predictable root coverage. However, it is a major challenge to suture and secure the flap coronally and stabilize its position over the entire healing period. Thus, the purpose of this study was to introduce a modified incision design and a suturing technique (sling and tag [SAT]) to enhance the results of CAF for root coverage. Ten patients with Miller Class I gingival recession defects (> or = 2.5 mm) were treated. Clinical parameters assessed included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival tissue thickness (GT), and keratinized gingiva width (KGW). Measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months and 1 year later. The paired t test was used to compare presurgical and postsurgical results. Statistically significant (P < .05) reductions in RD (2.6 +/- 0.5 mm) and RW (2.9 +/- 0.9 mm) were observed at 1 year. An average of 93.0% +/- 14.8% root coverage was achieved. In addition, a statistically significant CAL gain of 3.3 +/- 1.0 mm was obtained. No statistically significant differences were found in PD and KGW before and after therapy. The newly introduced flap design and SAT suturing technique may enhance the results of CAF for root coverage.     

Healing response of gingival recession defects following guided tissue regeneration procedures in smokers and non-smokers

Abstract This retrospective study evaluated healing response in gingival recession defects following guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in smokers. 22 systemically healthy patients who had been treated for deep (4 mm), buccal. Miller's class I or II gingival recession defects with ePTFE membranes were included. Patients were regarded as smokers if they smoked more than 10 cigarettes/day at the time of surgical procedure. Occasional and former smokers were excluded. 9 patients (6 male, mean age 29 years) were smokers, while 13 patients (4 male, mean age 35 years) were non smokers. Clinical parameters, recorded pre surgery and at 6 months post surgery. included defect-specific plaque (DPI) and bleeding on probing (BoP) scores, recession depth (RD). probing depth (PD). clinical attachment level (CAL). and keratinized tissue width (KG). Extent of membrane exposure (ME) and newly formed tissue (NFT) gain were assessed at membrane removal. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between smokers and non-smokers in demographic and pre surgery defect characteristics. DPI and BoP scores were similar pre surgery and remained almost unchanged thorough out the observation interval in both groups. ME was significantly greater in smokers (2.6±1.4 mm) than in non smokers (1.3±0.6 mm). NFT gain was 2.8±1.0 mm in smokers and 3.6±1.4 mm in non-smokers, the difference being not statistically significant. Smokers showed significantly less RD reduction and root coverage (2.5±1.2 mm and 57%, respectively) compared to non-smokers (3.6±1.1 mm and 78%, respectively). In conclusion, the results indicate that treatment outcome following GTR in gingival recession defects is impaired in cigarette smokers.     

Root coverage: comparison of coronally positioned flap with and without titanium-reinforced barrier membrane

BACKGROUND: Various surgical procedures have been proposed as effective treatment methods for recession defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of root coverage comparing the coronally positioned flap (CPF) with and without guided tissue regeneration (GTR) using a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene barrier in paired gingival recession defects. METHODS: Procedures were performed in 10 patients having bilateral buccal recession defects > or = 2.0 mm on maxillary canines and first premolars. Mucoperiosteal flaps were raised and root surfaces were scaled, planed, and conditioned. Randomly assigned sites received either GTR + CPF or CPF treatment. Clinical parameters measured at baseline and at 6 months after the procedure included gingival recession depth (GRD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), keratinized gingival width (KGW), and alveolar crest level (ACL). RESULTS: GRD decreased from 3.4 +/- 0.6 mm to 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm with GTR (45% root coverage) and from 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm to 1.3 +/- 0.7 mm with CPF (60% root coverage). The difference in GRD decrease between procedures was significant. CAL, KGW, and PD differences between procedures were not significant. ACL mean gain was significant (1.0 +/- 0.6 mm in the GTR group and 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm in the CPF group; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both GTR and CPF procedures result in root coverage. The amount of root coverage obtained with CPF was greater than that observed with GTR, although GTR resulted in significantly greater ACL gain.     

Comparison of 2 clinical techniques for treatment of gingival recession.

BACKGROUND: In early case studies, use of a collagen barrier as a guided tissue regeneration (GTR) material has shown particular promise in procedures aimed at root coverage. The similarities between collagen membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) have made collagen membrane an attractive and a possible alternative material for root coverage. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare these 2 techniques, SCTG versus a GTR-based procedure (GTRC), for root coverage/recession treatment. METHODS: Sixteen patients with bilateral Miller's Class I or II (gingival recession > or = 3.0 mm) recession defects were treated either with SCTG or GTRC using a newly designed collagen membrane. Clinical parameters monitored included recession depth (RD), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized gingiva (KG), attached gingiva (AG), and recession width (RW), each measured at the mid-buccal area to the nearest 0.5 mm. Measurements were taken at baseline and 6 months. A standard mucogingival surgical procedure was performed. Data were reported as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/residual maximal likelihood (REML)-based mixed effect model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in RD, CAL, KG, and AG between test and control groups at either time period. However, SCTG showed significantly more residual PD and more RW gain when compared to GTRC at 6 months. Both treatments resulted in a statistically significant (P < 0.05) reduction of recession defects (2.5 mm and 2.8 mm), gain of CAL (2.8 mm and 2.3 mm), reduction of RW (1.9 mm and 2.7 mm), and increase of KG (0.7 mm and 1.1 mm) and AG (0.7 mm and 0.5 mm) for GTRC and SCTG, respectively, when comparing 6-month data to baseline. Mean root coverage of 73% (collagen membrane) and 84% (subepithelial connective tissue graft) was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 techniques are clinically comparable. Use of a modified collagen membrane to attain root coverage may alleviate the need for donor site procurement of connective tissue.