Treatment of class III multiple gingival recessions: a randomized-clinical trial

Background: The aim of this controlled randomized split‐mouth study was to evaluate whether a modified tunnel/connective tissue graft (CTG) technique – enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combination will improve the treatment of multiple class III recession when compared with the same technique alone. M...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of clinical periodontology Vol. 37; no. 1; pp. 88 - 97
Main Authors Aroca, Sofia, Keglevich, Tibor, Nikolidakis, Dimitris, Gera, Istvan, Nagy, Katalin, Azzi, Robert, Etienne, Daniel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.01.2010
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0303-6979
1600-051X
1600-051X
DOI10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01492.x

Cover

More Information
Summary:Background: The aim of this controlled randomized split‐mouth study was to evaluate whether a modified tunnel/connective tissue graft (CTG) technique – enamel matrix derivative (EMD) combination will improve the treatment of multiple class III recession when compared with the same technique alone. Materials and Methods: Twenty healthy subjects with a mean age of 31.7 years, were enrolled for the trial in a university periodontal clinic. Patients with at least three adjacent gingival recessions on both sides of the mouth were treated with a modified tunnel/CTG technique. On the test side, an EMD was used in addition. Clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 28 days, 3, 6 and 12 months after the surgery. Results are presented at the subject level. Results: The mean root coverage from baseline to 1 year post‐surgery was 82% for the test group and 83% for the control group. Complete root coverage was achieved at 1 year in eight (38%) of the 20 surgeries (experimental and control group). Conclusions: One‐year results indicate that the modified tunnel/CTG technique is predictable for the treatment of multiple class III recession‐type defects. The addition of EMD does not enhance the mean clinical outcomes.
Bibliography:ArticleID:JCPE1492
istex:697C7680A8406944638DD0E722191DD1AECE5719
ark:/67375/WNG-NKCGMVRB-1
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
The study has been self‐supported by the Department of Periodontology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary and for the regenerative material by the first author.
Conflict of interest and source of funding statement
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01492.x