Conflict of interest and source of funding statement
Randomized Clinical Trial
Treatment of gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap and a xenogeneic collagen matrix: a multicenter randomized clinical trial
Article first published online: 10 OCT 2012
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Volume 40, Issue 1, pages 82–89, January 2013
How to Cite
J Clin Periodontol 2012; 00:000–000.Treatment of gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap and a xenogeneic collagen matrix: a multicenter randomized clinical trial10.1111/jcpe.12019, , , , , , , , , , , .
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This study was supported by a research grant from Geistlich Pharma AG.
- Issue published online: 11 DEC 2012
- Article first published online: 10 OCT 2012
- Accepted manuscript online: 11 SEP 2012 06:15AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 2 SEP 2012
- Geistlich Pharma AG
- collagen (matrix);
- gingival recession;
- keratinized tissue;
- root coverage;
- tissue regeneration;
To evaluate the clinical outcomes of the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM) in combination with the coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of localized recession defects.
Material & Methods
In a multicentre single-blinded, randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial, 90 recessions (Miller I, II) in 45 patients received either CAF + CM or CAF alone.
At 6 months, root coverage (primary outcome) was 75.29% for test and 72.66% for control defects (p = 0.169), with 36% of test and 31% of control defects exhibiting complete coverage. The increase in mean width of keratinized tissue (KT) was higher in test (from 1.97 to 2.90 mm) than in control defects (from 2.00 to 2.57 mm) (p = 0.036). Likewise, test sites had more gain in gingival thickness (GT) (0.59 mm) than control sites (0.34 mm) (p = 0.003). Larger (≥3 mm) recessions (n = 35 patients) treated with CM showed higher root coverage (72.03% versus 66.16%, p = 0.043), as well as more gain in KT and GT.
CAF + CM was not superior with regard to root coverage, but enhanced gingival thickness and width of keratinized tissue when compared with CAF alone. For the coverage of larger defects, CAF + CM was more effective.