A comparative assessment of root coverage of gingival recession using modified coronally advanced flap using microsurgical and macro surgical techniques

---

Original Article

Author Details : Avineet Kaur*, Akanksha Kashyap, Sonampreet K Dhillon, Jagjit Kaur, Shanam Kansil, Iqra Khilji

Volume : 6, Issue : 1, Year : 2021

Article Page : 24-27

https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijpi.2021.005

Suggest article by email

Get Permission

---

Abstract

Background: Gingival anatomic factors, chronic trauma, periodontitis, and tooth alignment are the main conditions leading to gingival recession. The present study was conducted to compare the root coverage of localized GR using modified coronally advanced flap (CAF) and root conditioning with 24% EDTA when performed under magnification and without magnification.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted on 30 patients with Miller’s Class I and II GR. Patients were divided into 2 groups i.e 15 in each group. Group I (Coronally advanced flap with microsurgery) was test group and group II (Coronally advanced flap with macrosurgical approach) was control. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), pocket probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) width of keratinized gingival, recession width and recession depth was recorded in both groups at baseline 1and 3 months for the test and control group. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to record pain postoperatively on
3rd and 7th day of the surgery. CAF and root conditioning were done with 24% EDTA. Surgical procedure at test site was carried under magnification 3.5 and at control site was done without magnification.
Results: The mean gingival index at baseline in group I was 0.45 and in group II was 0.66, PI was 0.86 ingroup I and 0.86 in group II, clinical attachment level was 3.02 in group I and 3.34 in group II, PD was 0.76 in group I and 0.74 in group II, width of keratinized tissue 4.20 in group I and 3.26 in group II, recession depth was 2.54 in group I and 2.68 in group II and recession width was 3.60 in group I and 3.68 in group II. There was alteration in mean GI, PI, CAL, PD, width of keratinized tissue, recession depth and recession width between both groups recorded at 1 month. Significant reduction was found in GI, CAL, width of
keratinized tissue, recession depth and recession width in both groups (P< 0> Conclusion: Authors found that microsurgery had less postoperative pain and discomfort when compared to macrosurgical approach. The use of the microscope augments the results, but obtaining an expertise in using needs a lot of practice.

Keywords: Gingival recession, Microsurgery, Pain.

How to cite : Kaur A , Kashyap A , Dhillon S K, Kaur J , Kansil S , Khilji I , A comparative assessment of root coverage of gingival recession using modified coronally advanced flap using microsurgical and macro surgical techniques. IP Int J Periodontol Implantol 2021;6(1):24-27

This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.