Abstract
Objectives: The present study aims to clinically compare and evaluate subepithelial connective tissue graft and the GTR based root coverage in treatment of Miller’s Class I gingival recession. Study Design: 30 patients with at least one pair of Miller’s Class I gingival recession were treated either with Subepithelial connective tissue graft (Group A) or Guided tissue regeneration (Group B). Clinical parameters monitored included recession RD, width of keratinized gingiva (KG), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), attached gingiva (AG), residual probing depth (RPD) and % of Root coverage(%RC). Measurements were taken at baseline, three months and six months. A standard surgical procedure was used for both Group A and Group B. Data were recorded and statistical analysis was done for both intergroup and intragroup. Results: At end of six months % RC obtained were 84.47% (Group A) and 81.67% (Group B). Both treatments resulted in statistically significant improvement in clinical parameters. When compared, no statistically significant difference was found between both groups except in RPD, where it was significantly greater in Group A. Conclusions: GTR technique has advantages over subepithelial connective tissue graft for shallow Miller’s Class I defects and this procedure can be used to avoid patient discomfort and reduce treatment time. Key words:Collagen membrane, comparative split mouth study, gingival recession, subepithelial connective tissue graft, guided tissue regeneration (GTR).
Highlights
Nowadays, patients have become increasingly aware of the gingival recession and its unaesthetic features
The right side was selected for Group A and left side for Group B. - Clinical Parameters: Soft Tissue Parameters: [Measured At The Selected Sites]: An acrylic stent that acted as a fixed point at the level of cemento-enamel junction to make accurate measurements of root exposure with the help of UNC- 15 probe [@: InSci, Equinox], both preoperatively and post-operatively was used
clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), attached gingiva (AG) were recorded pre-operatively and post-operatively at three months and six months. %RC was calculated at six months post operative. - Preparation of the recipient sites: (Figs. 1,2) The surgical area was prepared with adequate local anesthesia, using 2% Lignocaine incision in a mesio-distal direction, extending into the adjacent interdental area slightly coronal to the tooth’s CEJ
Summary
Patients have become increasingly aware of the gingival recession and its unaesthetic features. Subepithelial connective tissue graft [SCTG] technique, initially described by Langer & Langer [2] is a standard technique with predictable and reproducible results. It yields 84.84% [3] to 96% [4] in areas ≥ 3 mm and 80% to 100% [5] results in areas with ≤ 3 mm of recession depth. An attempt has been made to evaluate the utility of GTR based root coverage as compared to subepithelial connective tissue with respect to patient acceptation and aesthetic results
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
