Background: Gingival recession may result in aesthetically unfavourable effects, difficulty in plaque control, increased susceptibility to root caries, and dentin hypersensitivity.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the use of modified semilunar techniques with connective tissue and subepithelial connective tissue grafts (Langer) for denuded root surface coverage.

Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, fourteen localized recessions of Miller class I to II were treated in 5 subjects. Recessions were randomly treated with modified semilunar techniques (test group) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (control group). Clinical parameters such as clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing pocket depth (PPD), vertical recession depth (VRD)  and recession width (RW)were recorded at base line, 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery and healing index and the subject's satisfaction was evaluated. The repeated measure test and paired-sample t-test were used for statistical analyses by SPSS.

Results: Both methods showed significant improvement in clinical parameters. The healing index (HI) in the test group was a slightly more than the control group in Day 10.Aesthetic VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) levels in the test group were more than the control group in 1, 3 and 6months (test group, in 1 month 6.57±1.13, in 3 month 7.86±1.07, in 6 month 8.00±0.81. control group in 1 month 5.57±1.13, in 3 month 7.00±1.00, in 6 month 7.14±0.90). The KTW, CAL, VRD and RW level’s difference in the test and control group was significant in 6 month compared to the base line (p=0.000).

Conclusions: The present study shows that treatment of Miller Class I and II gingival recession by the modified semilunar technique is acceptable.

Clinical trial registration: The trial was registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (http://www.irct.ir) with the Irct ID: IRCT201512021760N43. Date registered: December 27, 2015.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


Keywords: Gingival recession, Autografting, Connective tissue, Subepithelial connective tissue graft
» HTML Fulltext    » PDF Fulltext    » doi: 10.19082/3699