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: 340  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

Year : 2022  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 227-235

Soft tissue augmentation using de-epithelialized free gingival graft compared to single-line incision subepithelial connective tissue graft in the management of miller class I and II gingival recession: A randomized controlled clinical trial

1 Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Vice Dean for Postgraduate Affairs and Research, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohamed Mashaly
27A Baghdad Street, Heliopolis, Cairo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_763_20

Rights and Permissions

Aims: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to clinically assess soft tissue augmentation and compare patients' morbidity and root coverage outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) versus de-epithelialized free gingival graft (DFGG) in the management of Miller Class I and II gingival recession. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight patients with Miller's Class I or II gingival recession (GR) defects were randomly assigned into two equal parallel groups treated with either CAF + SCTG, harvested using single-line incision technique (control), or CAF + DFGG (test). Gingival thickness (GT), recession depth, recession width, percentage of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, pocket depth, and clinical attachment level were measured at baseline and 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively, including pain, stress, bleeding, and inability to chew. Patients' overall satisfaction and root coverage esthetic scores were recorded at 6 months. Results: Both groups demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in all clinical outcomes after 3 and 6 months compared to baseline. DFGG showed a statistically significant increase in GT after 6 months. No statistically significant difference was detected in other clinical outcomes between both groups at different time intervals. Both treatments achieved 92.9% complete root coverage. Patients treated with CAF + DFGG reported significantly higher stress and inability to chew scores after 2 weeks than those treated with SCTG. There were no significant differences in patient satisfaction between both groups. Conclusions: CAF + SCTG and CAF + DFGG were both effective and can be applied safely in treating Miller Class I and II GRs.

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 Downloaded65    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal