Comparision of Coronally Advanced and Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap for the Treatment of Gingival Recession
Published: June 1, 2014 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/.4428
Leela Rani Moka, Ramanarayana Boyapati, Srinivas M., Narasimha swamy D., Chakrapani Swarna, Madhusudhan Putcha
1. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, GSL College of Dental Sciences, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India.
2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh, India.
3. Professor, Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
4. Professor & HOD, Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
5. Professor, Department of Periodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
6. Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Dr Sudha & Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences,
Chinaoutpalli, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Correspondence
Dr. Ramanarayana Boyapati,
Senior Lecturer, Department of Periodontics, Mamata Dental College, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh - 507002, India.
Phone: 91-9490144365, Email: dr.ramanarayana@gmail.com
Background: Gingival Recession (GR) occurs in population with low oral hygiene levels. Root coverage may be achieved by a number of surgical techniques, including pedicle gingival grafts, free grafts, connective tissue grafts, gtr may also be used. The objective of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF) and Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of miller’s class I gingival recession defects in maxillary teeth.
Materials and Methods: Twenty systemically healthy patients, with isolated miller’s class 1 gingival recessions, were selected and allocated randomly into two groups, Group I and Group II with 10 patients in each. In Group I, the patients were treated with coronally advanced flap procedure with sling sutures, whereas in Group II, patients were treated with semilunar coronally repositioned flap without sutures.
Results: Descriptive statistical analysis has been carried out in the present study. Results on continuous measurements are presented on Mean ± SD. Significance is assessed at 5 % level of significance. Student t-test (two tailed, dependent) has been used to find the significance of study parameters between baseline - 3 months and baseline - 6 months, 90% Confidence interval for mean has been computed.
Conclusion: CAF provides consistently better results than SCRF With all other parameters, such as clinical attachment levels, percentage of root coverage and complete root coverage and esthetics were taken into account, caf was found to be superior. In contrary to this, there is significant increase in width of keratinized tissue in scrf group.
[
FULL TEXT ] | [ PDF]