{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03814002089864159, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008881922675026124, 'mean_word_length': 5.237785016286645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?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}}
A comparison between connective tissue grafts combined with either double pedicle grafts or coronally positioned pedicle grafts: A clinical study

Background: Various surgical techniques have been proposed for treating gingival recession. This randomized clinical study compared the effectiveness of using a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) combined with an overlying double pedical graft (DPG) or a coronally positioned flap (CPF) in the treatment of isolated gingival recession. Materials and Methods: A total of 20, healthy, non-smoking subjects with single Miller's Class I or Class II recession defects were selected. The defects, at least 3.0 mm deep, were randomly assigned to the test (DPG + SCTG) or control group (CPF + SCTG). Gingival recession (REC), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of keratinized gingival tissue (WKG), plaque index and papillary bleeding index were assessed at baseline and 6 months post-operatively. Results: Recession depth was significantly reduced 6 months post-operatively (P < 0.05) for both groups. Mean root coverage was 88% and 84% in the test and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in REC, PPD, CAL, or WKG at baseline. However, at 6 months post-operatively, there were statistically significant changes in REC, CAL and WKG in favor of the test group (P < 0.05) from the baseline, but the comparison between the two was not statistically significant. The percentage of teeth with complete root coverage was greater in the test group when compared to the control group, but the results were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The results indicate that both surgical approaches are effective in addressing root coverage. Furthermore, when an increase in keratinized tissue width is a desired outcome, both the treatment modalities have shown comparable outcomes.