Subepithelial connective tissue graft for root coverage in smokers and non-smokers: A clinical and histologic controlled study in humans

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate root coverage of gingival recessions and to compare graft vascularization in smokers and non-smokers. Methods: Thirty subjects, 15 smokers and 15 non-smokers, were selected. Each subject had one Miller Class I or II recession in a non-molar tooth. Clinical measurements of probing depth (PD), relative clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), and width of keratinized tissue (KT) were determined at baseline and 3 and 6 months after surgery. The recessions were treated surgically with a coronally positioned flap associated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. A small portion of this graft was prepared for immunohistochemistry. Blood vessels were identified and counted by expression of factor VIII-related antigen-stained endothelial cells. Results: Intragroup analysis showed that after 6 months there a was gain in CAL, a decrease in GR, and an increase in KT for both groups (P<0.05), whereas changes in PD were not statistically significant. Smokers had less root coverage than non-smokers (58.02% +/- 19.75% versus 83.35% +/- 18.53%; P<0.05). Furthermore, the smokers had more GR (1.48 +/- 0.79 mm versus 0.52 +/- 0.60 mm) than the nonsmokers (P<0.05). Histomorphometry of the donor tissue revealed a blood vessel density of 49.01 +/- 11.91 vessels/200x field for non-smokers and 36.53 +/- 10.23 vessels/200x field for smokers (P<0.05). Conclusion: Root coverage with subepithelial connective tissue graft was negatively affected by smoking, which limited and jeopardized treatment results.

Comparison between two surgical techniques for root coverage with an acellular dermal matrix graft

Aim: The aim of this randomized, controlled, clinical study was to compare two surgical techniques with the acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) to evaluate which technique could provide better root coverage. Material and Methods: Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller Class I gingival recession areas were selected. In each patient, one recession area was randomly assigned to the control group, while the contra-lateral recession area was assigned to the test group. The ADMG was used in both groups. The control group was treated with a broader flap and vertical-releasing incisions, and the test group was treated with the proposed surgical technique, without releasing incisions. The clinical parameters evaluated before the surgeries and after 12 months were: gingival recession height, probing depth, relative clinical attachment level and the width and thickness of keratinized tissue. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for all parameters at baseline. After 12 months, there was a statistically significant reduction in recession height in both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference between the techniques with regard to root coverage. Conclusions: Both surgical techniques provided significant reduction in gingival recession height after 12 months, and similar results in relation to root coverage.