We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry



Forgotten password?


Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 2     17. Feb. 2017
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 37 (2017), No. 2  (17.02.2017)

Page 264-271, doi:10.11607/prd.2741, PubMed:28196169

The Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Öncü, Elif
The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane used in combination with a modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) and to compare it with the use of a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in combination with a MCAF in treatment of Miller Class I and II bilateral multiple gingival recessions. A total of 20 patients with multiple Miller Class I and II maxillary gingival recession defects participated in this randomized, split-mouth, controlled study. A total of 60 defects received either PRF + MCAF (test group, n = 30) or MCAF with SCTG (control group, n = 30). Gingival recession depth (RD), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival thickness (GT) were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months. Patients' discomfort postsurgery was measured by comparing visual analog scale scores. The percentage of root coverage was 84% in the control group and 77.12% in the test group (P = .007). Complete root coverage of the control and test groups was 60% and 50%, respectively (P = .112). KTW and GT increased in both groups from baseline to 6 months (P < .001). At 6 months postoperative, KTW was greater in the control group (P = .024) and GT was higher in the test group (P = .005). Use of a PRF membrane in gingival recession treatment decreased postoperative discomfort compared to SCTG-treated gingival recessions (P < .001). Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that localized gingival recessions could be successfully treated with MCAF + PRF as well as MCAF + SCTG. The PRF technique has the bonus advantage of being more comfortable during the postoperative period. The author suggests that the use of PRF is a valid alternative to SCTG for the treatment of localized gingival recessions.