Root‐Coverage Procedures for the Treatment of Localized Recession‐Type Defects: A Cochrane Systematic Review

Abstract

SCTGs, coronally advanced flaps alone or associated with other biomaterial, and GTR may be used as root-coverage procedures for the treatment of localized recession-type defects. In cases where root coverage and gain in keratinized tissue are expected, the use of SCTGs seems to be more adequate.

Gingival recession: part 3. Surgical management using free grafts and guided tissue regeneration

“…However, neither of these techniques has been shown to demonstrate any significant benefit over traditional grafting procedures. 22 …”

“…25 The mean percentage root coverage achieved with subepithelial connective tissue grafts has been shown to vary between 65-98%. 22,[26][27][28][29] The number of sites showing complete root coverage varies between 18-87%. 22,28 Chambrone et al 30 suggested that connective tissue graft could be considered to be the gold standard grafting procedure.…”

“…22,[26][27][28][29] The number of sites showing complete root coverage varies between 18-87%. 22,28 Chambrone et al 30 suggested that connective tissue graft could be considered to be the gold standard grafting procedure. Harris 29 showed 98% mean root coverage was sustained at 27.5 month follow up on patients who had Miller class I and II defects.…”

“…25 When the subepithelial connective tissue graft is compared with guided tissue regeneration, the subepithelial graft has shown evidence of achieving greater root coverage. 22,33,34 Evidence shows that the size of the initial recession defect will determine the amount of root coverage achieved. 22 Miller class I defects can achieve complete root coverage in 100% of cases and in class II defects complete root coverage was seen in 88% of cases.…”

Gingival recession: part 2. Surgical management using pedicle grafts

“…A recent systematic review found that overall a better percentage of complete and mean root coverage was seen in recession defects less that 4 mm. 9 The mean root coverage achieved with a laterally repositioned flap and the double papilla flap have shown to vary between 34-81% and complete root coverage varies between 40-50% of sites. 25,26 With these procedures there is a risk of donor site recession particularly with the laterally repositioned flap of approximately 1 mm.…”