Effectiveness of Tuberosity Micro Connective Tissue Graft for Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recession Defects

Official title

Palatal vs Tuberosity Micro-connective Tissue Grafts for the Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recession Defects: a Multi-center Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview

The objective of this project is to compare post-operative pain associated with palatal and tuberosity donor sites for micro-CTG, and to evaluate the outcomes in both the donor and recipient sites.

Detailed description

A variety of surgical methods have been reported to reestablish root coverage, including tunneling techniques and coronally and laterally advanced flaps. As thin gingival tissue is one of the predisposing factors for GRD, the adjuvant use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (CTGs) is often considered. CTGs are thought to contribute to phenotype modification and stability of treatment outcomes and studies have indicated favorable esthetic results and high degrees of root coverage. CTGs are preferably harvested either from the lateral superficial part of the palate or from the tuberosity, due to the high amount of lamina propria and minimal submucosal tissue (adipose and glandular tissue).

When multiple adjacent teeth exhibit GRDs, the preferred surgical approach should offer the greatest possible root coverage, while limiting drawbacks (i.e., patient morbidity, esthetic problems). Thus, one of the challenges related to coverage of multiple GRDs is the scarcity of donor tissue. Modification of the harvested CTG into multiple "micro-CTG" has been proposed for the treatment of multiple adjacent GRDs (MAGRD) in order to reduce the amount of CTG to be harvested. Soft-tissue grafts from the tuberosity are increasingly gaining popularity not only because they are easier to harvest, are denser in connective tissue fibers but also because harvesting from the tuberosity presents minimal risk of intra- or post-operative complications, resulting in reduced patient morbidity. However CTG from maxillary tuberosity have been reported to induce a hyperplastic response in some patients.

The objective of this study will be to compare palatal versus tuberosity micro-CTG on postoperative pain, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), degree of root coverage and esthetic outcomes.

The investigators hypothesise that no statistically significant differences will be observed in terms of %root coverage and patient satisfaction at 12 months (non-inferiority). Subjects in the test group (micro-CTG) will report significantly lower morbidity at 1 and 2 weeks post-surgery when compared to controls (superiority).

Interventions

• Procedure modified coronally advanced tunnel technique combined with multiple palatal micro connective tissue grafts
  The connective tissue graft will be harvested from the palate.
• Procedure modified coronally advanced tunnel technique combined with multiple tuberosity micro connective tissue grafts
  The connective tissue graft will be harvested from the maxillary tuberosity.

Primary outcome measures

• Mean mid-facial recession coverage (mRC) [Time frame: up to 1 year]

Secondary outcome measures (5)

• Complete Root Coverage (CRC) [Time frame: up to 1 year]
• Changes of Keratinized Tissue Width (KTW) [Time frame: up to 1 year]
• Changes of Gingival Thickness (GT) [Time frame: up to 1 year]
• Patient Morbidity/Discomfort [Time frame: up to 2 weeks]
• Patient Satisfaction [Time frame: up to 1 year]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• age ≥18 years,
• systemically healthy,
• presenting adjacent RT1/RT2 recessions, on both sides of the anterior maxilla, with an apico-coronal extension (i.e. recession depth) > 2mm combined with thick phenotype and deep root concavity.

Exclusion criteria

• pregnancy or lactation,
• heavy tobacco smoking (>15 cigarettes/day),
• uncontrolled medical conditions and intake of medication that can affect gingival conditions.
• uncorrected trauma from toothbrushing,
• severe tooth malposition,
• history of root coverage procedures.

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Allocation

Randomized

Model

Parallel assignment

Masking

Triple blind

Primary purpose

Treatment

Study locations

Center list to be confirmed — check the primary protocol.

Publications

• Chambrone L, Chambrone D, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA. Can subepithelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession-type defects? J Dent. 2008 Sep;36(9):659-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.007. Epub 2008 Jun 26. PMID 18584934
• Sanz-Martin I, Rojo E, Maldonado E, Stroppa G, Nart J, Sanz M. Structural and histological differences between connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palatal mucosa or from the tuberosity area. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Feb;23(2):957-964. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2516-9. Epub 2018 Jun 18. PMID 29915931
• Dellavia C, Ricci G, Pettinari L, Allievi C, Grizzi F, Gagliano N. Human palatal and tuberosity mucosa as donor sites for ridge augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;34(2):179-86. doi: 10.11607/prd.1929. PMID 24600654
• Cairo F, Rotundo R, Miller PD, Pini Prato GP. Root coverage esthetic score: a system to evaluate the esthetic outcome of the treatment of gingival recession through evaluation of clinical cases. J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):705-10. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.080565. PMID 19335093

Identifiers

NCT: NCT06650072 · OCarcuac-tuberosity microCTG

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗