Treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions using leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin with coronally advanced flap: a 12-month split-mouth controlled randomized clinical trial
Abstract
This split-mouth randomized study aimed to assess efficacy of leucocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in achieving root coverage (RC) for multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) throughout 12-month period. The study enrolled 59 teeth from 12 patients with Miller Class I MAGRs ≥ 2 mm on bilateral or contralateral sides. Patients were randomly assigned to receive coronally advanced flap (CAF) with either CTG (control) or L-PRF (test) treatment. Various parameters, including plaque and gingival index, clinical attachment level, recession depth, probing depth, recession width (RW), papilla width (PW), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT), percentage of RC, complete root coverage (CRC), and location of the relative gingival margin concerning the cemento-enamel junctions (GMCEJ) after CAF, were recorded at baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-surgery. On June 29, 2021 the study was registred to ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04942821). Except KTW and GT gain, all clinical parameters, RC, and CRC were similar between the groups at all follow-up periods (p > 0.05). The higher GT and KTW gains were detected in the control group compared to test group at 12 months (p < 0.05). Both RC and CRC were positively associated with initial PW and GMCEJ, but negatively with initial RW (p < 0.05). The current study concludes that L-PRF were equally effective as CTG in treating MAGRs in terms of RC and CRC. Additionally, RC and CRC outcomes…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 12 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.