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
. 2010 Jul;37(7):651-8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01582.x. Epub 2010 Jun 1.

A clinical comparison of two flap designs for coronal advancement of the gingival margin: semilunar versus coronally advanced flap

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A clinical comparison of two flap designs for coronal advancement of the gingival margin: semilunar versus coronally advanced flap

Ronaldo B Santana et al. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Background: The semilunar incision was introduced in oral surgery more than a century ago. The semilunar coronally re-positioned flap (SLCRF) is one of the variants of this procedure; however, no previous controlled clinical study has evaluated the SLCRF performed as originally described. The objective of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the SLCRF and coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of maxillary Miller class I recession (GR) defects.

Materials and methods: Twenty-two patients, with 22 contra-lateral Miller class I GR defects, were randomly assigned to CAF or SLCRF. Clinical parameters assessed included recession height, width of keratinized tissue, probing depth, vertical clinical attachment level, visual plaque score and bleeding on probing. Clinical recordings were performed at baseline and 6 months later. Inter-measurements differences were analysed with a chi(2) or a paired t-test, with significance set at alpha<0.05.

Results: Both flap designs were effective in obtaining and maintaining a coronal displacement of the gingival margin. The CAF resulted in clinical improvements significantly better than SLCRF for percentage of root coverage (RC), frequency of complete RC and gain in clinical attachment level. RC obtained in the immediate post-surgical period of SLCRF-treated sites was not maintained throughout the subsequent evaluations.

Conclusion: RC is significantly better with CAF compared with the original SLCRF technique in the treatment of shallow maxillary Miller class I GR defects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources