Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |


Login  | Users Online: 409  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 217-226

Comparative evaluation of platelet-rich fibrin versus connective tissue grafting in treatment of gingival recession using pouch and tunnel technique: A randomized clinical study

1 Consultant Periodontist & Laser Specialist, Clove Dental Clinics, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Periodontology, Saraswati Dental College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Government Medial College, Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vivek Kumar Bains
233, Tiwari Ganj, Faizabad Road, Chinhat, Saraswati Dental College, Lucknow - 226 028, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_749_20

Rights and Permissions

Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and connective tissue grafting in the treatment of gingival recession (GR) using pouch and tunnel (P and T) technique. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 Class I or Class II GR defects in 17 patients were randomized treated with P and T with PRF (Group I, n = 20) and P and T with CTG (Group II, n = 20). The parameters measured were plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), horizontal gingival recession (HGR), vertical gingival recession (VGR), width of attached gingiva (WAG), width of keratinised gingiva (WKG), gingival thickness-mid buccal (GTMB), and gingival thickness interdental papilla (GTIP). Postsurgical discomfort level (PSDL), hypersensitivity score (HS), and patient esthetic score (PES) were recorded using visual analog scale (VAS). The PI, GI, PPD, CAL, HGR, VGR, WAG, WKG, GTMB, and GTIP were assessed at pretreatment (baseline) and 1-, 3-, and 6-month posttreatment. The PSDL, HS, and PES were assessed at baseline, day 10, 1, 3, and 6-month posttreatment. Results: P and T with PRF and CTG resulted in root coverage of 73.75% ± 7.80% and 70.83% ±8.26%, respectively. Patient response and acceptance for the surgical treatment modality showed less discomfort and better esthetics in Group I as compared to Group II. Conclusions: PRF treated sites were comparable to the gold standard CTG with better patient acceptance and a lesser invasive approach in terms of graft procurement.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded131    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal