Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this randomized, controlled, masked clinical trial was to compare the percentage of root coverage obtained with a coronally positioned flap plus acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft to that of a tunnel technique plus ADM 4 months post-surgically. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects with one site with > or =3 mm Miller Class I or II recession were treated and followed for 4 months. Twelve patients received a coronally positioned flap plus ADM and were considered the positive control group (CPF). The test group consisted of 12 subjects treated with a coronally positioned tunnel technique plus ADM (TUN). Subjects were randomly selected by a coin toss to receive the test or control treatment. RESULTS: The mean facial recession defect at the initial examination for the TUN group was 3.1 +/- 0.3 mm; this was reduced to 0.7 +/- 0.9 mm at the 4-month examination for a gain of 2.4 +/- 1.0 mm or 78% defect coverage (P <0.05). The mean facial recession defect at the initial examination for the CPF group was 3.4 +/- 0.8 mm; it was reduced to 0.2 +/- 0.3 mm at the 4-month examination for a gain of 3.2 +/- 0.9 mm or 95% defect coverage (P <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups (P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The coronally positioned flap plus ADM produced a defect coverage of 95%, whereas the tunnel technique plus ADM produced only 78% coverage. This difference was considered clinically significant but was not statistically significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papageorgakopoulos et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: