Comparison of Two Techniques in Gingival Recession Treatment. One-year Clinical Follow-up Study

Comparison of Two Techniques in Gingival Recession Treatment. One-year Clinical Follow-up Study

42 patients were treated either with E-CTG (N=20) or SCAF (N=22). The recordings included clinician-based (recession depth, recession width, probing depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, tissue thickness, clinical attachment gain (CAG), root coverage (RC), keratinized tissue change (KTC)) and patient-based (wound healing index (WHI), dentine hypersensitivity (DH), tissue appearance, patient expectations and aesthetics) parameters that were taken at baseline, T1 (sixth week), T2 (sixth month) and T3 (first year).

Inclusion Criteria:

• single Miller I GR defects ≤3mm at upper anterior or premolar teeth
• systemically healthy
• identifiable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ)
• PD ≤3 mm

Exclusion Criteria:

• periodontal surgery experience in the past two years
• excessive contacts
• mobility
• caries
• loss of vitality
• smoking
• pregnancy