Comparison of Two Flaps for Root Coverage

Evaluation of Two Different Flaps Associated With Connective Tissue Graft in the Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to compare clinical, esthetic and patient-centered outcomes of coronally advanced tunnel (TUN) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) both associated with connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recession.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Gingival Recession
• Intervention / Treatment: Procedure: CAF plus connective tissue graft; Drug: Sodium dipyrone; Drug: chlorhexidine rinse; Procedure: Tunnel plus connective tissue graft

Detailed Description

This is a prospective, parallel and controlled clinical trial. The population evaluated in the study was selected at Institute of Science and Technology (ICT), São José dos Campos, College of Dentistry.

Patients were assigned to one of the three treatment groups:

• Group TUN+CTG (21): Periodontal surgery for root coverage through tunnel flap technique plus connective tissue graft.
• Group CAF+CTG (21): Periodontal surgery for root coverage through trapezoidal flap plus connective tissue graft.

All surgical procedures were performed by a single operator (MPS). The gingival recession defects were randomly treated by either the trapezoidal-type of coronally advanced flap plus connective tissue graft (CAF+CTG) or the coronally advanced tunnel technique with subepithelial connective tissue graft (TUN+CTG). In brief description, CAF treatment was performed by starting with two divergent releasing incisions lateral to the recessed area. A sulcular incision was made to unite the releasing incisions and the flap was raised beyond the mucogingival junction (MGJ) in split-full-split thickness. The connective tissue graft was removed from the palate and sutured in position. Sling sutures were placed to stabilize the flap in a coronal position 2 mm above the cement-enamel junction (CEJ), followed by interrupted sutures to close the releasing incisions. The tunnel flap was performed with initial sulcular incisions, spit thickness flap was prepared using specific tunneling knives beyond the mucogingival junction and until flap gain mobility. The flap was laterally extended to adjacent papillae that were carefully detached by means of a full-thickness preparation. The connective tissue graft was insert into the tunnel. Sling sutures were performed involving the flap and graft to coronally cover 2 mm above the CEJ. After the surgery, the participants were requested to take 500 mg of sodium dipyrone every 4 hours for 3 days in case of pain, and to avoid brushing and flossing in the treated area for a period of 2 weeks. During this period, plaque control was performed using 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse used twice a day. The sutures were removed after 7 days, and all of the patients were recalled for prophylaxis and reinforcement of motivation and instruction for atraumatic tooth brushing during the study period.

Clinical, esthetics, and comfort of patients parameters were assessed at 45 days, 2, 3 and 6 months after the procedure.

Quantitative data were recorded as mean ± standard deviation (SD), and normality was tested using Shapiro-Wilk tests. The probing depth (PD), relative gingival recession (RGR), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and dentin hypersensitivity (DH) values were examined by two-way repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate the differences within and between groups, followed by a Tukey test for multiple comparisons when the Shapiro-Wilk p value was ≥ 0.05. Those presenting Shapiro-Wilk p values < 0.05 were analyzed using a Friedman test (for intragroup comparisons) and Mann-Whitney tests (for intergroup comparisons). Patients' esthetics and discomfort measures using visual analog scale (VAS) were analyzed by T-tests. The frequency of complete root coverage was compared using χ2 tests. Intergroup root coverage esthetic score (RES) comparisons were performed with a T-test. A significance level of 0.05 was adopted.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 42
• Phase: Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients presenting Miller class I or II gingival recession in the maxillary canines or premolars
• Visible cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) with pulp vitality;
• Patients presenting no signs of active periodontal disease and full-mouth plaque and bleeding score ≤20%;
• Patients older than 18 years old; probing depth ˂3 mm in the included teeth;
• Patients who agreed to participate and signed an informed consent form.

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients presenting systemic problems that would contraindicate the surgical procedure;
• Patients taking medications known to interfere with the wound healing process or that contraindicate the surgical procedure;
• Smokers or pregnant women;
• Patients who underwent periodontal surgery in the area of interest;
• Patients with orthodontic therapy in progress.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Triple

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: CAF plus connective tissue graft; CAF treatment was performed by starting with two divergent releasing incisions lateral to the recessed area. A sulcular incision was made to unite the releasing incisions and the flap was raised beyond the mucogingival junction (MGJ) in split-full-split thickness. The connective tissue graft was removed from the palate according to Bruno technique (1994) and sutured in position. Sling sutures were placed to stabilize the flap in a coronal position 2 mm above the CEJ, followed by interrupted sutures to close the releasing incisions.	Procedure: CAF plus connective tissue graft; Periodontal surgery for root coverage by the trapezoidal flap associated with connective tissue graft.; Other Names: Periodontal plastic surgery; Drug: Sodium dipyrone; All participants were instructed to take 500 mg sodium dipyrone just in case of pain.; Other Names: Drug prescription; Drug: chlorhexidine rinse; All participants were instructed to perform 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse after the surgical procedures.; Other Names: Drug prescription
Experimental: Tunnel plus connective tissue graft; The tunnel flap was performed according to Zuhr et al., 2007. Following initial sulcular incisions, spit thickness flap was prepared using specific tunneling knives beyond the mucogingival junction and until flap gain mobility. The flap was laterally extended to adjacent papillae that were carefully detached by means of a full-thickness preparation. The connective tissue graft was insert into the tunnel. Sling sutures were performed involving the flap and graft to coronally cover 2 mm above the CEJ.	Drug: Sodium dipyrone; All participants were instructed to take 500 mg sodium dipyrone just in case of pain.; Other Names: Drug prescription; Drug: chlorhexidine rinse; All participants were instructed to perform 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse after the surgical procedures.; Other Names: Drug prescription; Procedure: Tunnel plus connective tissue graft; Periodontal surgery for root coverage by the tunnel flap associated with connective tissue graft.; Other Names: Periodontal plastic surgery

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Percentage of Defect Coverage	Percentage mean (%) of root surface covered by the surgical treatment, measured through a periodontal probe.	6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Root Coverage Esthetic Score	The Root Coverage Esthetic Scale (RES; Cairo et al. 2009) was performed by two blinded and independent examiners (CFA and IFM) at the 6-month post-operative assessment. This score evaluates five variables: level of the gingival margin, marginal tissue contour, soft tissue texture, mucogingival junction alignment, and gingival color. Because complete root coverage was the primary treatment goal, and the other variables were considered secondary, the value assigned for root coverage was 60% of the total score, whereas 40% was assigned to the other four variables. With regard to the assessment of the final position of the gingival margin, 3 points were given for partial root coverage, and 6 points were given for complete root coverage; 0 points were assigned when the final position of the gingival margin was equal or apical to the previous recession. One point was assigned for each of the other four variables. Thus, 10 points was a perfect score.	6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Mauro P Santamaria, PhD, ICT-UNESP

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• de Sanctis M, Zucchelli G. Coronally advanced flap: a modified surgical approach for isolated recession-type defects: three-year results. J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Mar;34(3):262-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.01039.x.
• Zuhr O, Fickl S, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Hurzeler MB. Covering of gingival recessions with a modified microsurgical tunnel technique: case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007 Oct;27(5):457-63.
• Bruno JF. Connective tissue graft technique assuring wide root coverage. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994 Apr;14(2):126-37.
• Santamaria MP, Neves FLDS, Silveira CA, Mathias IF, Fernandes-Dias SB, Jardini MAN, Tatakis DN. Connective tissue graft and tunnel or trapezoidal flap for the treatment of single maxillary gingival recessions: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2017 May;44(5):540-547. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12714. Epub 2017 Apr 12.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: February 1, 2014
• Primary Completion (Actual): October 1, 2015
• Study Completion (Actual): October 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: June 23, 2016
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: June 24, 2016
• First Posted (Estimate): June 27, 2016

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): May 15, 2020
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: April 30, 2020
• Last Verified: April 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Stomatognathic Diseases; Periodontal Diseases; Mouth Diseases; Gingival Diseases; Periodontal Atrophy; Gingival Recession; Physiological Effects of Drugs; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Anti-Infective Agents; Peripheral Nervous System Agents; Analgesics; Sensory System Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antirheumatic Agents; Antipyretics; Disinfectants; Chlorhexidine; Dipyrone
• Other Study ID Numbers: UEPJMF 3

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: Undecided

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No