Yaghini Jaber, Mahmoudzadeh Mehrnegar, Afshari Zohreh, Farmohammadi Amir, Mogharehabed Ahmad
Department of Periodontics, Dental Implants Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Department of Periodontics, School of Medicine, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran.
Front Dent. 2025 Jun 1;22:21. doi: 10.18502/fid.v22i21.18815. eCollection 2025.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with connective tissue graft (CTG) and vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA). The statistical population of this randomized clinical trial consisted of 24 healthy non-smokers with Miller Class I or II gingival recession (GR) defects, equally divided into two groups of 12 to receive either a CAF or the VISTA technique. Clinical parameters including the clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival biotype, pocket probing depth (PPD), recession height (RH), recession width (RW), root coverage (RC), and keratinized tissue width (KTW) were measured and compared between the two groups using ANCOVA, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and repeated-measures ANOVA (alpha=0.05). The CAF group showed a significantly higher RC percentage (97.22%±9.62%) than the VISTA group (77.22%±24.28%%). Both techniques exhibited similar performance in terms of reducing the PPD and increasing the KTW and gingival attachment. However, the CAF group experienced a significantly greater reduction in CAL, RW, and RH than the VISTA group (P<0.05). The VISTA and CAF groups showed a complete root coverage (CRC) percentage of 33.3% and 91.7%, respectively, indicating higher effectiveness of CAF than VISTA.
本研究的目的是比较冠向复位瓣(CAF)联合结缔组织移植(CTG)与前庭切口骨膜下隧道入路(VISTA)的临床效果。这项随机临床试验的统计人群包括24名健康的非吸烟者,他们患有Miller I级或II级牙龈退缩(GR)缺损,平均分为两组,每组12人,分别接受CAF或VISTA技术。使用协方差分析、Fisher精确检验、独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney U检验和重复测量方差分析(α=0.05)测量并比较两组之间的临床参数,包括临床附着水平(CAL)、牙龈生物型、牙周袋探诊深度(PPD)、退缩高度(RH)、退缩宽度(RW)、牙根覆盖(RC)和角化组织宽度(KTW)。CAF组的RC百分比(97.22%±9.62%)显著高于VISTA组(77.22%±24.28%)。在减少PPD、增加KTW和牙龈附着方面,两种技术表现相似。然而,CAF组的CAL、RW和RH减少幅度显著大于VISTA组(P<0.05)。VISTA组和CAF组的完全牙根覆盖(CRC)百分比分别为33.3%和91.7%,表明CAF比VISTA更有效。