Scholarlink

Objective <p>This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of gingival recession Type 1 (RT1) treatment using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone and in combination with L-PRF at 6 months.</p> Materials and methods <p>A total of 70 RT1 from 19 patients were included. Participants were randomly assigned to the test group (TG, CAF + L-PRF, <i>n</i> = 42) and the control group (CG) (CAF alone, <i>n</i> = 28). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 6 months: the primary outcomes were percentage of root coverage (%RC) and complete root coverage (CRC); and the secondary outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC), changes in gingival thickness (GT) and volumetric tissue gain, recession area reduction, analgesic consumption, healing quality (the Inflammatory Proliferative Remodeling [IPR] score), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between groups; a random-intercept mixed-effects model was used for all site-level outcomes.</p> Results <p>At six months, %RC was 89.30% ± 20.33% (TG) and 81.60% ± 27.93% (CG) (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). For the TG and CG, respectively, %CRC was 73.81% and 57.14%; the mean GT gain was 0.16 ± 0.10&#xa0;mm and 0.11 ± 0.10&#xa0;mm (<i>p</i> = 0.08); the mean volume gain was 1.13 ± 1.25 mm<sup>3</sup> and 0.86 ± 0.84 mm<sup>3</sup> (<i>p</i> = 0.32); the mean number of pills taken was 1.67 ± 0.98 and 2.25 ± 1.02 (<i>p</i> = 0.04); the esthetic satisfaction was 95% ± 5% and 90% ± 7% (<i>p</i> = 0.31); willingness to undergo the procedure again: 93% ± 4% and 88% ± 6% (<i>p</i> = 0.22); sensitivity reduction: 85% ± 6% and 80% ± 8% (<i>p</i> = 0.19). There was no statistically significant difference in healing quality and PROMs.</p> Conclusion <p>Both CAF alone and CAF combined with L-PRF yielded comparable clinical and volumetric outcomes in RT1 treatments. No statistically significant advantages were observed with the adjunctive use of L-PRF.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Because CAF alone achieves high predictability for RT1 defects, the routine adjunctive use of L-PRF provides limited additional clinical benefits.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Treatment of gingival recession type 1 using coronally advanced flap with leucocytes-platelet rich fibrin: a randomized controlled trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月7日

查看全文
  • Nuno Bernardo Malta dos Santos,
  • Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira Fernandes,
  • Tiago Marques,
  • Manuel Correia Sousa,
  • André Correia,
  • María Pilar Batalla Vázquez,
  • Juan Blanco-Carrión

摘要

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of gingival recession Type 1 (RT1) treatment using a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone and in combination with L-PRF at 6 months.

Materials and methods

A total of 70 RT1 from 19 patients were included. Participants were randomly assigned to the test group (TG, CAF + L-PRF, n = 42) and the control group (CG) (CAF alone, n = 28). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 6 months: the primary outcomes were percentage of root coverage (%RC) and complete root coverage (CRC); and the secondary outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC), changes in gingival thickness (GT) and volumetric tissue gain, recession area reduction, analgesic consumption, healing quality (the Inflammatory Proliferative Remodeling [IPR] score), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between groups; a random-intercept mixed-effects model was used for all site-level outcomes.

Results

At six months, %RC was 89.30% ± 20.33% (TG) and 81.60% ± 27.93% (CG) (p > 0.05). For the TG and CG, respectively, %CRC was 73.81% and 57.14%; the mean GT gain was 0.16 ± 0.10 mm and 0.11 ± 0.10 mm (p = 0.08); the mean volume gain was 1.13 ± 1.25 mm3 and 0.86 ± 0.84 mm3 (p = 0.32); the mean number of pills taken was 1.67 ± 0.98 and 2.25 ± 1.02 (p = 0.04); the esthetic satisfaction was 95% ± 5% and 90% ± 7% (p = 0.31); willingness to undergo the procedure again: 93% ± 4% and 88% ± 6% (p = 0.22); sensitivity reduction: 85% ± 6% and 80% ± 8% (p = 0.19). There was no statistically significant difference in healing quality and PROMs.

Conclusion

Both CAF alone and CAF combined with L-PRF yielded comparable clinical and volumetric outcomes in RT1 treatments. No statistically significant advantages were observed with the adjunctive use of L-PRF.

Clinical relevance

Because CAF alone achieves high predictability for RT1 defects, the routine adjunctive use of L-PRF provides limited additional clinical benefits.