Novel Surgical Approach for Root Coverage Using Coronally Advanced Flap in Conjunction With Transposition of Periosteal Pedicle Graft.

INTRODUCTION: Gingival recession is a complex phenomenon with multifactorial etiology. It is defined as the apical migration of the soft tissue margin beyond the cemento-enamel junction, thereby exposing the root surface. It results in the destruction of both soft and hard tissues. CASE PRESENTATION: Three patients with buccal gingival recession defects underwent surgical treatment consisting of transposition of a periosteal pedicle in conjunction with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) technique. As the cambium layer of the periosteum has greater osteoblastic potential than the fibrous layer, this study considered juxtaposing of the cambium layer directly onto the denuded root surface. A 9-month review demonstrated satisfactory: root coverage; gain in clinical attachment, reduction in probing depth; and increase in width of keratinized gingiva with a good color match and minimal scarring. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the study, this CAF technique, in conjunction with the cambium layer of periosteum, showed a significant amount of root coverage.

A comparative evaluation of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) versus platelet concentrate graft (PCG) in the treatment of gingival recession using coronally advanced flap technique: A 12-month study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to clinically evaluate and compare the efficacy of platelet concentrate graft (PCG) with that of subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) using a coronally advanced flap technique in the treatment of gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve patients with a total of 24 gingival recession defects were selected and randomly assigned either to experimental site-A (SCTG) or experimental site-B (PCG). The clinical parameters were recorded at baseline up to 12 months post-operatively and compared. RESULTS: The mean vertical recession depth (VRD) statistically significantly decreased from 2.50 ± 0.48 mm to 0.54 ± 0.50 mm with PCG and from 2.75 ± 0.58 mm to 0.54 ± 0.45 mm with SCTG at 12 months. No statistically significant differences between the treatments were found for VRD and clinical attachment level (CAL), while keratinized tissue width (KTW) gain was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Both the SCTG and the PCG group resulted in a significant amount of root coverage. The PCG technique was less invasive and required minimal time and clinical maneuver. It resulted in superior aesthetic outcome and lower post-surgical discomfort at the 12 months follow-up.