Comparison of two techniques in gingival recession treatment: A randomized one-year clinical follow-up study.

Background: Gingival recession (GR) is highly prevalent in the general population and represents a significant concern for patients and clinicians. Various surgical techniques have been proposed to treat gingival recession. Well-designed trials with clinicianand patient-based parameters, evaluating the envelope connective tissue graft (E-CTG) and semilunar coronally advanced flap (SCAF) techniques are still needed.

Objectives: The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of E-CTG and SCAF in the treatment of GR during a 1-year follow-up.

Material And Methods: A total of 42 patients with GR were treated with E-CTG (n = 20) or SCAF (n = 22). Clinician-based recordings of recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), tissue thickness (TT), clinical attachment gain (CAG), root coverage (RC), keratinized tissue change (KTC), and wound healing index (WHI), as well as patient-based parameters of dentine hypersensitivity (DH), tissue appearance, patient expectations, and esthetics were collected at baseline (BL), 6 weeks (T 1 ), 6 months (T 2 ), and 1 year (T 3 ).

Results: After the treatment, E-CTG demonstrated better outcomes than SCAF in terms of CAG (50.70% vs. 33.33%), RC (85.60% vs. 35.60%) and KTC (1.70 ±1.49 mm vs. 0.36 ±0.96 mm) at T 3 . Similar findings were detected in terms of WHI, tissue appearance, patient expectations, and esthetics. Although inconvenient surgical experience was recorded, better results were obtained after E-CTG in terms of DH and meeting the RC expectations.

Conclusions: Despite it being more difficult surgical experience and the risk of keloid formation, E-CTG was superior to SCAF in terms of RC percentage, reducing DH and obtaining satisfactory RC. However, it is still necessary to improve patient comfort in the case of E-CTG.