Gingival Recession Treatment Using Two Different Surgical Techniques

July 7, 2021 updated by: Ahmed Mortada, Assiut University

Root Coverage Using Tunneling Technique of Xenogenic Collagen Matrix vs. Autologous Connective Tissue as a Treatment of Miller Class Two Gingival Recession (RCT Study)

Coronally the advanced flap is considered a predictable treatment of gingival recession but in certain situations, it needs a filler like subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG) which is considered as the gold standard treatment approach.

This randomized controlled trial compares the clinical benefits and effectiveness of a xenogenic collagen matrix (mucoderm, botiss, dental, Berlin, Germany) as a filler to the subperiosteal connective tissue graft (CTG).

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

24

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Assuit, Egypt, 71111111
        • Assiut University

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

18 years to 60 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • -The selected patients for this study are non-smokers, aged 18-60 years with multiple gingival recession (Miller class 1, or 2.) for more than two adjacent affected teeth with plaque score less than 25%

Exclusion Criteria:

  • -Patients with systemic complications, psychological problems, parafunctional habits, or patients presented with Mal-posed teeth, hypermobile teeth, teeth with Miller class 3 gingival recession were excluded from this study.

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

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

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: root coverage surgeries using autologous connective tissue for treatment of gingival recession
root coverage surgeries using tunneling technique of autologous connective tissue as a treatment of Miller class two gingival recession
xenogeneic collagen matrix called mucoderm used for root coverage for treatment of gingival recession instead of harvesting from the patients connective tissue
Experimental: root coverage surgeries using xenogenic collagen matrix for treatment of gingival recession
root coverage surgeries using tunneling technique of mucodrm membrane ; xenogeneic collagen matrix as a treatment of Miller class two gingival recession
xenogeneic collagen matrix called mucoderm used for root coverage for treatment of gingival recession instead of harvesting from the patients connective tissue

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
The zone of keratinized gingiva
Time Frame: 6 months after the surgery
The distance from the tip of the papilla to the mucogingival junction minus the probing depth measured in mm using graduated periodontal probe.
6 months after the surgery

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Periodontal probing depth
Time Frame: 6 months after the surgery
measured from the gingival margin to the depth of the gingival sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
6 months after the surgery
Clinical attachment loss
Time Frame: 6 months after the surgery
measured from the cementoenamel junction to the depth of the sulcus in six sites per tooth and measured in mm.
6 months after the surgery
Gingival recession
Time Frame: 6 months after the surgery
The depth measured from the gingival margin to the cementoenamel junction in mm.
6 months after the surgery
Patient satisfaction of the esthetics
Time Frame: 6 months
measured using the visual analog scale.
6 months

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)

September 1, 2020

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 1, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

June 15, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 21, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 7, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

July 19, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 19, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 7, 2021

Last Verified

July 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

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 Gingival Recession

Clinical Trials on xenogeneic collagen matrix

Subscribe