Long-term Outcomes of Tunnel Technique

July 9, 2019 updated by: Dr. France LAMBERT, University of Liege

Tunnel Versus Coronally Advanced Flap Combined With a Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Gingival Recessions: Long Term (4 Years) Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Few studies evaluate the outcomes beyond 1 year follow up for gingival recessions treatments using the tunnel technique in combination with connective tissue graft. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the 4-year outcomes of the CAF versus the pouch/tunnel (TUN) technique both associated with CTG.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

40

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

N/A

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Each patient (experimental unit) contributed a single recession. In cases of multiple recessions, the deepest one was included.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Miller's class I recessions;
  • Recession of 2 mm to 5 mm;
  • Maxillary incisors, canines or premolars;
  • Identifiable cementoenamel junction (CEJ);
  • Patients minimum 18 years old;
  • No/controlled periodontal disease;
  • ASA1 or ASA2 (American Society of Anesthesiologists) general health status;
  • Providing a signed informed consent form.

Exclusion criteria were:

  • Smokers;
  • Presence of cervical carious lesion;
  • Pocket depth greater than 4 mm;
  • Sites where previous muco-gingival therapy was performed;
  • Pregnancy.
  • In presence of non-carious cervical lesions, the anatomical CEJ was reconstructed by the use of a composite before the procedure.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Other
  • Time Perspectives: Prospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Control group (CAF+CTG; N=20)
The patient received 600 mg of ibuprofen (paracetamol 1 g in case of allergy) prior to surgery, and chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.2% was provided for 2 min. Patients received local anaesthesia at the donor and recession sites (articaine hydrochloride 7200 mg/1.8 ml, adrenalin 1800 mcg/1.8 ml). CTG harvesting was performed prior to the preparation of the reception site to avoid any bias. The graft dimension was calculated according to the recession dimensions; a minimum of 3 mm of the graft was submerged mesially, distally and apically. The CTG was harvested from the palate with single edge incision and sutured with 4.0 silk. The patient was subsequently assigned randomly to the control (CAF+CTG) or the test group (TUN+CTG).
Test group (TUN+CTG; N=20)
The patient received 600 mg of ibuprofen (paracetamol 1 g in case of allergy) prior to surgery, and chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.2% was provided for 2 min. Patients received local anaesthesia at the donor and recession sites (articaine hydrochloride 7200 mg/1.8 ml, adrenalin 1800 mcg/1.8 ml). CTG harvesting was performed prior to the preparation of the reception site to avoid any bias. The graft dimension was calculated according to the recession dimensions; a minimum of 3 mm of the graft was submerged mesially, distally and apically. The CTG was harvested from the palate with single edge incision and sutured with 4.0 silk. The patient was subsequently assigned randomly to the control (CAF+CTG) or the test group (TUN+CTG).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Plaque Index Change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The plaque accumulation is assessed at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits using a 0-1 scoring system, 0 being the the highest value, 1 being the lowest result (0 =No detectible plaque ; 1 = Plaque can be seen by the naked eye)
baseline, 6 months and 4 years
Bleeding on probing score change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The bleeding tendency is assessed at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits as : 0 No bleeding when a periodontal probe is passed along the gingival margin adjacent to the implant; 1 Isolated bleeding spots visible ; 2 Blood forms a confluent red line on the margin; 3 Heavy or profuse bleeding.
baseline, 6 months and 4 years
Recession width change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years

The status of the recession width was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits.

The scale is in mm. More large is it, worst it is Minest large it is, best it is

baseline, 6 months and 4 years
Gingival thickness change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years

The gingival thickness was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits.

The scale is in mm. More thick is it, best it is Minest thick it is, worst it is

baseline, 6 months and 4 years
Keratinised mucosa height change
Time Frame: baseline, 6 months and 4 years

The status of the keratinised mucosa height was recorded at baseline, 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits.

The scale is in mm. More large is it, best it is Minest large it is, worst it is

baseline, 6 months and 4 years
Mean Root Coverage change
Time Frame: at 6 months and 4 years.

The status of the Mean Root Coverage was recorded at 6 months and 4 years follow-up visits.

The scale is in mm. More long it is, best it is Minest long it is, worst it is

at 6 months and 4 years.
PES Assessment change
Time Frame: Baseline, 6 months and 4 years
The PES was assessed according to the seven parameters described by Fürhauser (Fürhauser et al., 2005).
Baseline, 6 months and 4 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Patient-related esthetic outcomes
Time Frame: 4 years
(Fürhauser et al., 2005). Patient-related esthetic outcomes were also recorded in a questionnaire using a 0-14 graduated scale (0 being the worst and 14 the best value).
4 years

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2014

Study Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 4, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 9, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

July 11, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 11, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 9, 2019

Last Verified

July 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

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

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.

Clinical Trials on Recession, Gingival

Clinical Trials on Connective tissue graft

Subscribe