Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the clinical effects of Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) and Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin (A-PRF) applied together with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) technique using a microsurgical approach in the treatment of Type I multiple gingival recessions (GR).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAF only | Active Comparator | Only Coronally Advanced Flap technique |
|
| CAF+CGF | Experimental | Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) applied together with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) technique |
|
| CAF+A-PRF | Experimental | Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin (A-PRF) applied together with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) technique |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAF only | Procedure | After local anesthesia, initially, sulcular incisions were made on the buccal aspect of the teeth and two vertical incisions were made. A trapezoidal flap was elevated with a split-full-split approach in the coronal-apical direction. The anatomic inter-dental papillae adjacent to the involved tooth were de-epithelialized. Plaque, calculus, and soft tooth structures on exposed root surfaces were removed with curettes. No further mechanical or chemical root conditioning materials were performed. The flap was coronally placed over the membranes to completely cover the CEJ and sutured with 6.0 propylene suture. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Complete and mean root coverage | Percentages of root coverage and complete root coverage were calculated according to the following standard formulae. Percentage of root coverage: [(preop. vertical gingival recession (VGR)- postop.VGR)\ preop. VGR] x 100 Percentage of complete root coverage: [(teeth with complete root coverage) \ (all treated teeth)] x 100. | Change from baseline at 6 months of the percent of complete and mean root coverage |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Gingival thickness | The gingival thickness was evaluated midbuccally in the attached gingival (GT-MB), halfway between the mucogingival junction and free gingival groove and at the base of the interdental papilla. GT was measured by using a periodontal probe with a rubber stopper under local anesthesia, and then the thickness was assessed by transferring to an electronic digital caliper. | Change from baseline at 6 months of the gingival thickness |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figen Öngöz Dede | Ordu | 52100 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C565529 | Growth Factors, Combined Defect of |
| D005889 | Gingival Recession |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D005882 | Gingival Diseases |
| D010510 | Periodontal Diseases |
| D009059 | Mouth Diseases |
| D009057 | Stomatognathic Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| CAF+CGF | Procedure | After local anesthesia, initially, sulcular incisions were made on the buccal aspect of the teeth and two vertical incisions were made. A trapezoidal flap was elevated with a split-full-split approach in the coronal-apical direction. The anatomic inter-dental papillae adjacent to the involved tooth were de-epithelialized. Plaque, calculus, and soft tooth structures on exposed root surfaces were removed with curettes. No further mechanical or chemical root conditioning materials were performed. The flap was coronally placed over the membranes to completely cover the CEJ and sutured with 6.0 propylene suture. Blood samples were collected into 10 ml glass-coated plastic tubes without anticoagulant solutions. These tubes were placed into CGF centrifuge machine and centrifuged immediately . CGF membrane were placed over the defect. The flap was coronally placed over the membranes to completely cover the CEJ and sutured with 6.0 propylene suture. |
|
| CAF+A-PRF | Procedure | After local anesthesia, initially, sulcular incisions were made on the buccal aspect of the teeth and two vertical incisions were made. A trapezoidal flap was elevated with a split-full-split approach in the coronal-apical direction. The anatomic inter-dental papillae adjacent to the involved tooth were de-epithelialized. Plaque, calculus, and soft tooth structures on exposed root surfaces were removed with curettes. No further mechanical or chemical root conditioning materials were performed. The flap was coronally placed over the membranes to completely cover the CEJ and sutured with 6.0 propylene suture. Blood samples were collected into 10 ml glass-coated plastic tubes without anticoagulant solutions. These tubes were placed into A-PRF centrifuge machine and centrifuged immediately. A-PRF membrane were placed over the defect. The flap was coronally placed over the membranes to completely cover the CEJ and sutured with 6.0 propylene suture. |
|
| Keratinized gingiva width (WKG) | The WKG was determined by subtracting the VGR from the CEJ- MGJ (mucogingival junction). | Change from baseline at 6 months of keratinized gingiva width |
| Patient esthetic score (PES) | Patient esthetic score (PES) to evaluate esthetic appearance (color, appearance, and form of the selected site), PES: bad-unlikely esthetics (score 0) → perfect esthetics (score 10) | Change from baseline at 6 months of the patient esthetic score |
| Patient comfort score (PCS) | Patient comfort score (PCS) for the pain, edema and other experiences regarding operating technique, instruments, and microscopic view, etc. PCS: unbearable discomfort (score 0) → no-discomfort (score 10). | Change from baseline at 6 months of the patient comfort score |
| Hypersensitivity score (HS) | "Hypersensitivity" score was recorded after blasting air (60 psi, 22°C) derived from a dental syringe that was heading for the root surface for 1 s. The syringe was held at 90° angle, 2-3 mm from the root surface. Neighboring teeth were shielded during testing with the dentist's gloved fingers; then the patient has enquired again to score the discomfort level. HS: no pain (score 0) → worst pain imaginable (score 10) | Change from baseline at 6 months of the hypersensitivity score |
| D055093 |
| Periodontal Atrophy |