The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage
The Comparison of the Efficacy of Gingival Unit Graft With Connective Tissue Graft in Root Coverage: A Randomized Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Tuzla
-
Istanbul, Tuzla, Turkey, 34852
- Sibel Kayaaltı Yüksek
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Systemic healthy individuals
- Presence Miller's class I and II gingival recession in the anterior and premolar teeth
Exclusion Criteria:
- Age <18 years
- Pregnancy
- Lactation
- Any cardiovascular, renal or hepatic conditions
- History of periodontal surgery
- Tooth mobility
- Presence of probing depth >3 mm and caries or restorations in the teeth undergoing treatment
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Gingival Unit Graft
For test group, gingival recessions were treated with gingival unit graft.
|
Gingival unit graft Connective tissue graft
|
|
Other: Connective Tissue Graft
For Control group, gingival recessions were treated with connective tissue graft.
|
Gingival unit graft Connective tissue graft
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change from Baseline Gingival Recession Depth at 6 month
Time Frame: Baseline and month 6.
|
The gingival recession depth consists of the distance from the cement-enamel junction to the most apical extension of the gingival margin.
The measurement is recorded in millimeters.
Change= (6 month score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and month 6.
|
|
Change from Baseline Keratinized Gingiva Height at 6 month
Time Frame: Baseline and month 6.
|
Keratinized gingiva height, measured as the distance from the gingival margin to the mucogingival line.
The measurement is recorded in millimeters.
Change= (6 month score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and month 6.
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Change from Baseline Root Hypersensitivity at 6 month
Time Frame: Baseline and month 6.
|
Root hypersensitivity at baseline and post-operative 6 month utilizing a visual numerical scale (VNS) test are defined.
Possible scores range from (0=no sensitive and 10= worst possible sensitive).
Change= (6 month score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and month 6.
|
|
Change from Baseline Patient Satisfaction at 6 month
Time Frame: Baseline and month 6.
|
The patient satisfaction with the gingiva position, structure and color of the gingival recessions sites utilizing a VNS test (0=not satisfied and 10=very satisfied) are defined.
Possible scores range from 0 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied).
Change= (6 month score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and month 6.
|
|
Change from Baseline Pain at 1 week
Time Frame: Baseline and week 1.
|
Pain perception of the surgery at intra and post-operative period (week 1) utilizing a VNS test are defined.
Possible scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).
Change= (1 week score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and week 1.
|
|
Change from Baseline Pain at 2 week
Time Frame: Baseline and week 2.
|
Pain perception of the surgery at intra and post-operative period (week 2) utilizing a VNS test are defined.
Possible scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).
Change= (2 week score-baseline score)
|
Baseline and week 2.
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Del Pizzo M, Modica F, Bethaz N, Priotto P, Romagnoli R. The connective tissue graft: a comparative clinical evaluation of wound healing at the palatal donor site. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Sep;29(9):848-54. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290910.x.
- Cairo F, Pagliaro U, Buti J, Baccini M, Graziani F, Tonelli P, Pagavino G, Tonetti MS. Root coverage procedures improve patient aesthetics. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Nov;43(11):965-975. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12603. Epub 2016 Sep 16.
- Zucchelli G, Mounssif I. Periodontal plastic surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2015 Jun;68(1):333-68. doi: 10.1111/prd.12059.
- Allen AL. Use of the gingival unit transfer in soft tissue grafting: report of three cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004 Apr;24(2):165-75.
- Kuru B, Yildirim S. Treatment of localized gingival recessions using gingival unit grafts: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol. 2013 Jan;84(1):41-50. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.110685. Epub 2012 Mar 5.
- Yildirim S, Kuru B. Gingival unit transfer using in the Miller III recession defect treatment. World J Clin Cases. 2015 Feb 16;3(2):199-203. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.199.
- Douglas de Oliveira DW, Oliveira-Ferreira F, Flecha OD, Goncalves PF. Is surgical root coverage effective for the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity? A systematic review. J Periodontol. 2013 Mar;84(3):295-306. doi: 10.1902/jop.2012.120143. Epub 2012 May 1.
- Camargo PM, Melnick PR, Kenney EB. The use of free gingival grafts for aesthetic purposes. Periodontol 2000. 2001;27:72-96. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0757.2001.027001072.x. No abstract available.
- Kayaalti-Yuksek S, Yaprak E. The comparison of the efficacy of gingival unit graft with connective tissue graft in recession defect coverage: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Mar;26(3):2761-2770. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04252-5. Epub 2021 Nov 17.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2015/174
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.