Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2009 Jul;80(7):1076-82.
doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080498.

Semilunar coronally positioned flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession: a 30-month follow-up study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Semilunar coronally positioned flap or subepithelial connective tissue graft for the treatment of gingival recession: a 30-month follow-up study

Sandro Bittencourt et al. J Periodontol. 2009 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The objective of this prospective, controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) or semilunar coronally positioned flap (SCPF) for the treatment of Miller Class I gingival recession defects.

Methods: Seventeen patients with bilateral Miller Class I gingival recessions (< or =4.0 mm) in maxillary canines or premolars were selected. The recessions were randomly assigned to receive SCPF or SCTG. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), thickness of keratinized tissue (TKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were measured at baseline and at 6 and 30 months post-surgery. Patient satisfaction with esthetics and root sensitivity was also evaluated.

Results: The root-coverage outcomes obtained at 6 months were maintained throughout the study. At the 30-month examination, the average percentage of root coverage was 89.25% for SCPF and 96.83% for SCTG (P >0.05); complete root coverage was observed in 58.82% and 88.24% of patients, respectively. SCTG maintained a statistically significant increase in TKT (P <0.05) at 30 months. At this time, there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to RH, RW, WKT, PD, and CAL. The evaluation of the esthetic outcome by the patient showed a preference for the SCTG treatment. Furthermore, in this group, no patient complained of residual or additional root hypersensitivity. In the SCPF group, three patients had this complaint at 30 months.

Conclusions: SCPF and SCTG can be successfully used to treat Class I gingival recession, presenting outcomes with long-term stability. However, patient-oriented outcomes, such as esthetics and root sensitivity, favor SCTG therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources