{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04714640198511166, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03535980148883375, 'mean_word_length': 4.394648829431438, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical efficacy of subepithelial connective tissue graft and A-PRF in the treatment of gingival recession.

OBJECTIVE
The current study was designed to clinically compare and evaluate subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) membrane-based root coverage in the treatment of gingival recession type 1 (RT1).


METHOD AND MATERIALS
The current study involved 17 patients with bilateral gingival recession (RT1). Thirty-four sites were randomly allocated to test (A-PRF) and control (SCTG) sites and all the procedures were performed by a single operator. A single blinded observer evaluated the test and control sites at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The clinical parameters such as recession depth, recession width, width of keratinized gingiva, clinical attachment level, and percentage of root coverage were recorded. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.


RESULTS
The mean recession depth at baseline for control and test groups was 3.06 ± 0.56 mm and 2.35 ± 0.49 mm, respectively (P < .001). At the end of the study period, the mean recession depth was 0.53 ± 0.62 mm in the control group and 1.12 ± 0.49 mm in the test group (P < .05). No complications were associated with both the groups. The mean percentage of root coverage was 84.31 ± 17.89% in the control group and 51.96 ± 15.45% in the test group (P < .001).


CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the study results suggest that both SCTG and A-PRF can be used in treating gingival recessions. However, SCTG is a better material in achieving root coverage and increasing keratinized tissue width.