Comparison of De-Epithelialized Gingival Graft With or Without Platelet Rich Fibrin in Multiple Gingival Recessions

Kutahya Health Sciences University15 enrolled

Overview

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and patient reported outcome measures of de-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) with or without platelet rich fibrin on treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions with coronally advanced flap (CAF) technique.

Fifteen patients with split-mouth multiple gingival recessions affecting at least 3 adjacent teeth will be treated with either DGG or DGG+PRF. Recession depth(RD) and width(RW), probing depth(PD), clinical attachment level(CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness(GT), and percentage of root coverage (RC%) will be evaluated at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. For patient reported outcome measurements, oral health impact factor-14 (OHIP-14) scores, postoperative pain, bleeding, discomfort and painkiller consumption will be recorded. A total of 15 patients will surgically treated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) associated with de-epithelialized gingival graft. Groups were defined as DGG and DGG+PRF: DGG Group (n=15): de-epithelialized subepithelial connective tissue grafts + coronally advanced flap DGG+PRF Group (n=15): de-epithelialized subepithelial connective tissue grafts+ L-Platelet Rich Fibrin + Coronally advanced flap

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Gingival Recession, Generalized

Interventions

DGG+PRFPROCEDURE

de-epithelialized subepithelial connective tissue grafts+ L-Platelet Rich Fibrin + Coronally advanced flap

DGGPROCEDURE

de-epithelialized subepithelial connective tissue grafts+ Coronally advanced flap

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsMax age: 65 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion criteria of participants were as belows: Age \> 18 years Systemically healthy and non-smoker Full-mouth plaque index and full-mouth gingival index score\< 20% No mucogingival surgery experience at operation area No active periodontal disease Patients who have not received orthodontic treatment Exclusion criteria of participants were as belows: Pregnancy and lactation Bruxism or occlusal trauma Medical contradictions and for periodontal plastic surgery (i.e. mental disorders) Medication intake Inclusion criteria of surgical area were as below; Presence of at least three single-rooted teeth (anterior-premolar) with RT1 Class \[25\] buccal gingival recession defects ≥2 mm in depth Keratinized gingival width\<3 mm Sufficient oral hygiene (bleeding on probing \<10%, Periodontal Depth\<3 mm) Patients without restoration and/or filling in the gingival recession area Absence of non-carious cervical lesions and non-detectable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) at the defect sites

Locations (1)

Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry

Ankara, Turkey (Türkiye)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

percentage of root coverage

Percentage of Root Coverage (RC%) were performed with the following formulas. RC%: \[(Preoperative RD-Postoperative RD)/ Preoperative RD\] x 100.

Time frame: at 6th month

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.