الفهرس 
Root coverage after the use of coronally advanced flap with advanced platelet rich fibrin (a- prf) compared with subepithelial connective tissue graft in management of miller class i and ii gingival recession a randomized clinical trial
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 240 |  |  |
| | | from | 240 | | |
Abstract
However, coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) has been documented as the most predictable root coverage procedure. Increases patient morbidity attributed to inclusion of second surgical site is the utmost limitation. Various surgical techniques has been proposed to overcome such complication. In the literature, limited evidence have been reported to evaluate the use of modern generation A-PRF for root coverage. Hence, the present study was conducted to compare the A-PRF to subepithelial connective tissue graft for treatment gingival recession. The present study included 20 patients with of Miller class I and II single gingival recession. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either CAF+ A-PRF (n=10) or CAF+ subepithelial connective tissue graft (n=10). The recession depth, recession width, pocket depth, clinical attachment loss, gingival thickness and width of keratinized tissue was measured at 3, 6 and 9 months and the amount of root coverage in mm estimated. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated by root coverage esthetic score (RES). In addition post-operative pain evaluated through VAS. Patient satisfaction assessment through questionnaire. Also, healing assessment via wound healing index. The results of the present study showed non-significantly significant difference in the amount of root coverage 2.00 ±0.53 and 2.00±0.76 for A-PRF group and SCTG group respectively. A-PRF group yielded higher statistically significant lower postoperative pain (p=0.000) and greater patient satisfaction (p=0.00) compared to SCTG group. Also, at the first 4 weeks postoperatively A-PRF group showed higher frequency (%) of sites with improved course of healing than SCTG group. In conclusion, A-PRF could achieve comparable results with SCTG regarding the amount root coverage. It seems that A-PRF might be promising alternative for SCTG in the treatment gingival recession