Comparison of coronally advanced versus semilunar coronally repositioned flap in the management of maxillary gingival recessions

• Main Authors: Bharath R. Govindasamy (Author), Vanaja Krishna Naik (Author), Aruna Balasundaram (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Elsevier, 2021-11-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1013-9052; 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.05.005
• Keywords: Gingival recession; Microsurgery; Surgical flaps; Treatment outcome; Wound healing; Medicine; R; Dentistry; RK1-715
• Source: Saudi Dental Journal, Vol 33, Iss 7, Pp 642-649 (2021)

Objectives: Maxillary gingival recessions can be managed by both semilunar coronally repositioned flap (SLCRF) and coronally advanced flap (CAF). The objective of this study was to compare SLRCF and CAF in terms of wound healing and periodontal parameters in the presence of magnification. Materials and methods: Thirty patients with Miller's class I gingival recession in maxillary anteriors and premolars were assigned to 2 groups including SLCRF and CAF. All procedures were performed using 2.5× magnifying loupes. Wound healing and periodontal clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 2nd, 4th, 8th and 12th week. Results: No significant difference was observed in wound healing and mean percentage root coverage in both the groups at 12th week (p > 0.05). However, SLCRF showed a statistically significant reduction in percentage of root coverage (PRC) at 12th week compared to 2nd week (p < 0.05). A significant gain in Clinical attachment level, width of keratinised tissue and a significant reduction in Recession Depth and Probing Depth were seen in both the groups at 12th week. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, both techniques resulted in similar wound healing at 12th week with the use of magnification. CAF provided more root coverage compared to SLCRF technique in the maxillary class I gingival recession defects.