A Clinical Comparison of Root coverage in Coronally Advanced Flap Technique (Zucchelli Method) with Free Connective Tissue Transplantation and Modified Tunnel Surgery Technique in Candidate Patients for Root Coverage

Main Article Content

Mohammad Tavakoli, Zahra sajedi, Fatemeh salehi ghalesefid, Maliheh Habibkhodaei, Masoumeh Behdarvandi, Hamidreza Mohammad sharifi, Jaber Yaghini

Abstract

Introduction: Because of the high frequency of gingival resorption, a variety of therapies have been created to treat it, and many attempts have been made to obtain the greatest clinical results, greater attractiveness, and least invasiveness in these treatments. Two connective tissue transplantation procedures, using a gradual coronal flap and a modified tunneling technique, have lately been examined by surgeons. However, it is yet to be determined if one approach is preferable to another. The current study was conducted with the goal of comparing clinical outcomes and the quantity of root canal in patients with root canal candidates using the Coronally Advanced flap technique (Zucchelli method), free connective tissue transplantation, and modified tunnel surgical techniques.


Materials and methods: The current clinical investigation included 20 patients with Miller class I and II gingival resorption, who were split into two groups of ten individuals at random. Connective tissue grafting with coronal progressive flap (CAF) was employed in one group, whereas modified tunnel method was used in the other. Probing depth, analysis height, analysis breadth, keratinized tissue width, clinical adhesion limit, gingival biotype and root coverage %, and gingival thickness were assessed in both groups in the time periods before the study, one month, three months, and six months. Following that, the results of the study will be evaluated using SPSS software and Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, and Friedman tests.


Findings: The percentage of root coverage in the CAF group was 73.9±28.7%, which was substantially lower than the percentage of root coverage in the MST group, which was 89.1±18.5 percent (P = 0.280). In addition to evaluating each of the clinical indicators of gingival resorption improvement, it was found that both techniques performed similarly in terms of reducing the depth of the probe, reducing the width of the analysis, and reducing the height of the analysis, with no distinction between the two. However, the MST group had a much higher increase in keratinized gingival breadth than the CAF group.


Conclusion: Generally, bare root covering with MST and CAF techniques in patients with gingival resorption produces essentially the same outcomes, and both procedures are appropriate. When comparing the breadth of keratinized gingiva, there were substantial variations in the parameter, and the MST technique was more successful than the CAF method. However, further research in this area is required before a definitive judgment can be reached.

Article Details

Section
Articles