Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=42 Randomized Triple-blind Treatment

Comparison of Two Flaps for Root Coverage

Gingival Recession

Enrolled (actual)
42
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jun 2017
Primary outcome: Primary: Percentage of Defect Coverage — 87.2; 77.4 percentage of root coverage

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
CAF plus connective tissue graft (Procedure); Tunnel plus connective tissue graft (Procedure); Sodium dipyrone (Drug); chlorhexidine rinse (Drug)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho
Primary completion
Oct 2015

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Defect Coverage
87.2; 77.4
SECONDARY
Root Coverage Esthetic Score
8.12; 7.98

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.

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.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

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.

Back to search