Clinical efficacy of amniotic membrane and collagen membrane in conjunction with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of gingival recession: a randomized controlled trial.

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of amniotic membrane (AM) and collagen membrane (CM), both used in conjunction with coronally advanced flaps (CAF), in the treatment of gingival recession, assessing their ability to achieve root coverage and improve periodontal health. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of root coverage. Secondary outcomes included recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted involving 15 patients with bilateral gingival recessions, resulting in 30 recession sites. Each patient was assigned one control site (CAF + CM) and one test site (CAF + AM) using a coin toss for randomization. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of root coverage. Additional clinical parameters including recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized tissue (WKT), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded using a customized stent. Postoperative evaluations were performed at three months. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in RH, RW, WKT, PD, and CAL from baseline to 3 months (p < 0.001). At the 3-month follow-up, the test group (CAF + AM) achieved a mean RH reduction of 2.7 ± 0.8 mm and a mean RW reduction of 3.6 ± 1.2 mm, while the control group (CAF + CM) achieved reductions of 2.7 ± 1.0 mm and 3.7 ± 1.0 mm, respectively. The mean percentage of root coverage was 91% in the test group and 88% in the control group, with no statistically significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Both AM and CM, when used in combination with CAF, are effective in managing gingival recession, yielding comparable root coverage and periodontal improvements. The study is limited by its short follow-up period and lack of histologic assessment. However, AM may offer practical advantages such as easier handling, reduced patient morbidity, and cost-effectiveness.