Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions sandwiched with a combination of A-PRF and L-PRF.

AIM: The aim of this study is to compare semilunar vestibular incision technique with pouch and tunnel technique in combination with A-PRF and L-PRF for treatment of Miller's class I and II multiple gingival recessions. METHOD: This is a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, split mouth study which consists of 16 systemically healthy patients with 96 sites and a mean age of 34.2 years, and divided randomly into 2 groups, Group A consists of semilunar vestibular incision technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF and Group B consists of Pouch and tunnel technique sandwiched with A-PRF and L-PRF. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, 3 months and 6 months which include plaque index, gingival index, recession depth, recession width, clinical attachment loss and width of keratinized tissue. RESULTS: All the clinical parameters showed significantly better levels for both the groups from baseline to 6 months. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed greater significance when compared to pouch and tunnel technique from baseline to 6 months post operatively. CONCLUSION: The combination of A-PRF and L-PRF with pouch and tunnel technique and semilunar vestibular technique showed better outcome 6 months post operatively. Semilunar vestibular incision technique showed promising results than pouch and tunnel technique for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions.

ENAP vs LANAP: assessment of revascularization using ultrasound Doppler flowmetry-a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.

Laser-assisted new attachment procedure (LANAP) is a new protocol that has been proposed for the treatment of periodontitis. However, there is little evidence regarding the rate of revascularization and the clinical efficacy of LANAP over conventional periodontal therapies. Hence, this study is done to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of LANAP vs Excisional new attachment procedure (ENAP) and also to assess the blood flow in both the techniques using ultrasound Doppler flowmetry. A split-mouth double-blinded controlled clinical trial was carried out in 15 subjects with chronic periodontitis. In every patient, 2 quadrants were treated with ENAP and the other 2 quadrants with LANAP. Clinical parameters like plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and radiographic measurements (RBL) were recorded at baseline and 6, 9, and 12 months, postoperatively. Gingival blood flow assessment was done at baseline and on the ninth day postoperatively. Both the groups showed statistically significant reduction in all the clinical parameters when compared from baseline to subsequent follow-up visits. There was greater reduction in all the parameters in LANAP group than that of ENAP group. The rate of revascularization was higher in ENAP group than that of LANAP group when compared from baseline to the ninth day postoperatively. Although there is a delay in the rate of revascularization in the LANAP group, there was significant improvement in all the clinical and radiographic parameters than that of the ENAP group when compared from baseline to follow-up visits.