N/A
Completed N=42
Comparison of Two Flaps for Root Coverage
Gingival Recession
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02814279 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
42
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jun 2017
Primary outcomePrimary: Percentage of Defect Coverage — 87.2; 77.4 percentage of root coverage
Summary
The aim of this study was to compare clinical, esthetic and patient-centered outcomes of coronally advanced tunnel (TUN) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) both associated with connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession.
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Percentage of Defect Coverage |
87.2; 77.4 | — |
| SECONDARY Root Coverage Esthetic Score |
8.12; 7.98 | — |
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- Patients presenting Miller class I or II gingival recession in the maxillary canines or premolars
- Visible cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) with pulp vitality;
- Patients presenting no signs of active periodontal disease and full-mouth plaque and bleeding score ≤20%;
- Patients older than 18 years old; probing depth ˂3 mm in the included teeth;
- Patients who agreed to participate and signed an informed consent form.
Exclusion Criteria
- Patients presenting systemic problems that would contraindicate the surgical procedure;
- Patients taking medications known to interfere with the wound healing process or that contraindicate the surgical procedure;
- Smokers or pregnant women;
- Patients who underwent periodontal surgery in the area of interest;
- Patients with orthodontic therapy in progress.
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02814279). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.