What question did this study set out to answer?

The research aims to assess the effectiveness of a coronally advanced flap treatment for gingival recession Type 1, with and without L-PRF.

May 9, 2026Open Access

Treatment of gingival recession type 1 using coronally advanced flap with leucocytes-platelet rich fibrin: a randomized controlled trial

Key Points

The research aims to assess the effectiveness of a coronally advanced flap treatment for gingival recession Type 1, with and without L-PRF.
Randomized controlled trial with 70 gingival recession Type 1 defects from 19 patients.
Participants assigned to either CAF alone or CAF with L-PRF, assessed at baseline and 6 months.
Clinical parameters included root coverage percentage, gingival thickness, and patient satisfaction.
No statistically significant difference in primary outcomes of root coverage between groups (p = 0.32).
CAF with L-PRF showed no advantages in healing quality or patient-reported outcomes (p > 0.05).
Analgesic consumption was lower in the CAF + L-PRF group (p = 0.04).

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of gingival recession Type 1 (RT1) treatment using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone and in combination with L-PRF at 6 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 RT1 from 19 patients were included. Participants were randomly assigned to the test group (TG, CAF + L-PRF, n = 42) and the control group (CG) (CAF alone, n = 28). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 6 months: the primary outcomes were percentage of root coverage (%RC) and complete root coverage (CRC); and the secondary outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC), changes in gingival thickness (GT) and volumetric tissue gain, recession area reduction, analgesic consumption, healing quality (the Inflammatory Proliferative Remodeling IPR score), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between groups; a random-intercept mixed-effects model was used for all site-level outcomes. RESULTS: (p = 0.32); the mean number of pills taken was 1.67 ± 0.98 and 2.25 ± 1.02 (p = 0.04); the esthetic satisfaction was 95% ± 5% and 90% ± 7% (p = 0.31); willingness to undergo the procedure again: 93% ± 4% and 88% ± 6% (p = 0.22); sensitivity reduction: 85% ± 6% and 80% ± 8% (p = 0.19). There was no statistically significant difference in healing quality and PROMs. CONCLUSION: Both CAF alone and CAF combined with L-PRF yielded comparable clinical and volumetric outcomes in RT1 treatments. No statistically significant advantages were observed with the adjunctive use of L-PRF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because CAF alone achieves high predictability for RT1 defects, the routine adjunctive use of L-PRF provides limited additional clinical benefits.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper