Treatment of Gingival Recession: Comparative Study Between Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Guided Tissue Regeneration
- 1 September 2000
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in The Journal of Periodontology
- Vol. 71 (9) , 1441-1447
- https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.71.9.1441
Abstract
Background: Various procedures have been proposed to treat gingival recession, but few studies compare these procedures to each other. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a clinical comparison of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a collagen membrane in the treatment of gingival recessions in humans.Methods: Twenty‐four defects were treated in 12 patients who presented canine or pre‐molar Miller Class I and/or II bilateral gingival recessions. Both treatments were performed in all patients, and clinical measurements were obtained at baseline and 18 months after surgery. These clinical measurements included gingival recession height (GR), root coverage (RC), probing depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KT), and final esthetic result.Results: Both SCTG and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane and bone graft demonstrated significant clinical and esthetic improvement for gingival recession coverage. The SCTG group was statistically significantly better than GTR for height of GR (SCTG = 0.2 mm, GTR = 1.12 mm, P = 0.02) and KT (SCTG = 4.58 mm, GTR = 2.5 mm, P P = 0.01). The 2 procedures were statistically similar in root coverage (SCTG = 95.6%, GTR = 84.2%, P = 0.073). The esthetic condition after both treatments was satisfactory (P = 0.024).Conclusions: It was concluded that the gingival recessions treated with the SCTG group were superior for GR, RC, and KT clinical parameters, while GTR demonstrated better PD reduction. The final esthetic results were similar using both techniques. J Periodontol 2000;71:1441‐1447.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of 2 Root Coverage Techniques: Guided Tissue Regeneration With a Bioabsorbable Matrix Style Membrane Versus a Connective Tissue Graft Combined With a Coronally Positioned Pedicle Graft Without Vertical Incisions. Results of a Series of Consecutive CasesThe Journal of Periodontology, 1998
- Subpedicle connective tissue graft versus free gingival graft in the coverage of exposed root surfaces A 5‐year clinical studyJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1997
- Guided Tissue Regeneration in Mucogingival SurgeryThe Journal of Periodontology, 1993
- Histologic Assessment of New Attachment Following the Treatment of a Human Buccal Recession by Means of a Guided Tissue Regeneration ProcedureThe Journal of Periodontology, 1993
- The Natural History of Periodontal Disease in Man: Prevalence, Severity, and Extent of Gingival RecessionThe Journal of Periodontology, 1992
- The Connective Tissue and Partial Thickness Double Pedicle Graft: A Predictable Method of Obtaining Root CoverageThe Journal of Periodontology, 1992
- The Subpedicle Connective Tissue GraftThe Journal of Periodontology, 1987
- Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Technique for Root CoverageThe Journal of Periodontology, 1985
- Free gingival grafts for the treatment of gingival recessionJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1982
- Treatment of Localized Gingival Recessions: Part III. Comparison of Results Obtained With Lateral Sliding and Coronally Repositioned FlapsThe Journal of Periodontology, 1978