Comparative clinical study of a bioabsorbable membrane and subepithelial connective tissue graft in the treatment of human gingival recession

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) Vol. 70; no. 2; p. 123
• Main Authors: Borghetti, A, Glise, J M, Monnet-Corti, V, Dejou, J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.1999
• Subjects: Absorption; Adult; Biocompatible Materials; Connective Tissue - transplantation; Epithelial Attachment - pathology; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Gingiva - pathology; Gingiva - transplantation; Gingival Pocket - pathology; Gingival Pocket - surgery; Gingival Recession - pathology; Gingival Recession - surgery; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods; Humans; Male; Membranes, Artificial; Middle Aged; Mouth Mucosa - pathology; Tooth Cervix - pathology; Tooth Root - pathology
• ISSN: 0022-3492
• DOI: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.2.123

Connective tissue grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) are the most current procedures in the treatment of gingival recession, but very few clinical comparative studies have been conducted. The purpose of this study was to compare 2 types of treatment of gingival recession in the same patients. Fourteen pairs of Miller Class I defects were selected in 14 patients. In each pair, one recession was randomly assigned for treatment by GTR using a bioabsorbable membrane, and the other treated by subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG). Height of recession (HR), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing sulcus depth (PSD), height of keratinized tissue (HKT), and distance from the cemento-enamel junction to the mucogingival junction (CEJ-MGJ) were recorded before surgery and 6 months postoperatively. The initial width and height of recession were, respectively, 3.73 mm (SD 0.56) and 3.85 mm (SD 1.15) for the CTG group, and 4.04 mm (SD 0.92) and 4.28 mm (SD 1.20) for the GTR group. The differences were not significant. CAL changes were not different. Both in the CTG group and in the GTR group, mean HR reduction was 2.89 mm (SD 1.18), representing a mean root coverage of 76% and 70.2%, respectively. The difference was not significant. HKT mean gain was significantly greater (P = 0.0001) with CTG (2.03 mm, SD 0.92) than with GTR (0.42 mm, SD 0.91). The GTR technique displaced the mucogingival junction significantly (P = 0.007) more coronally (2.35 mm, SD 1.44) than the CTG technique (0.78 mm, SD 1.23). Within the limits of this study, no difference could be found between subepithelial connective tissue graft and GTR with a bioabsorbable membrane with regard to root coverage, but the GTR technique did not increase the height of keratinized tissue and displaced the mucogingival junction more coronally at 6 months.