after first online publication: In the Results section of the abstract on page 1749, lines 3 and 4, the mean difference in CBL changes was revised. On page 1752, the number of implants was updated under "Description of studies and methodologic quality," and all values were updated under "I. IIP with GBR versus IIP without GBR." In Table 1 on page 1753, the patient numbers and number of implants placed in the Becker et al. study were updated. Panels A and C in Figure 2 on page 1755 were replaced, and all values under "I.b. IIP with bone graft and membrane versus IIP without GBR" were updated on pages 1755-1756. The 12-month time period under "III. IIP with GBR versus conventional implant placement" and "III.a. IIP with bone graft only versus conventional implant placement" on page 1756 was updated to "…with at least 12month follow-up (up to 5 years)." The data recalculations resulted in no significant change in the interpretation of the results.]

IntroductionGingival recession (GR) is an unhealthy root exposure that could result in sensitivity, abrasion, root caries and higher chance of plaque collection. The prevalence of GR is higher on the facial surfaces but could also affect the lingual tooth surfaces. Despite the etiology and location of GR, treatment is warranted to improve the long‐term periodontal stability around the affected teeth. This case report describes the use of partly deepithelialized free gingival graft (PE‐FGG) to augment lingual GR post orthodontic treatment.Case PresentationThe current report evaluates the results of PG‐FGG to correct lingual recession in a 21‐year‐old female. The patient presented with 5 mm lingual recession on a previously orthodontically rotated tooth (#21). The recession was treated using a PE‐FGG to increase keratinized gingiva (KG) and reduce root exposure. Follow‐up at 24 months showed adequate root coverage and KG.ConclusionThe use of PE‐FGG can be used to enhance KG for lingual recession with adequate root coverage.