Clinical Evaluation of Tunneled Coronally Advanced Flap v.s Coronally Advanced Flap With Graft for Gingival Recession

Gingival recession can cause clinical conditions that could be of main concern for patients. Techniques aiming for coverage of the gingival recession aim to address dentin hypersensitivity, non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) and enhance patient's esthetics (Cortellini \& Bissada, 2018). Mid-buccal gingival recessions have been associated with patient's esthetic discomfort (Zucchelli \& Mounssif, 2015). Most of the studies in the literature focus on the treatment of RT1 recession as they have the most favorable prognosis of full root coverage (Barootchi et al., 2020). Despite most studies focusing their attention on RT1 cases, RT2 defects are found to be the most prevalent type with 88.8% among patients according to (Romandini et al., 2020).

The coronally advanced flap and the tunneling technique are the most commonly performed surgical approaches for treating gingival recessions. However, these two approaches have commonly been regarded as alternatives to each other, with clinicians choosing to perform only one of them during root coverage procedures.

(Barootchi \& Tavelli, 2022) aimed in his conducted case series to designate a surgical technique to treat isolated RT2 gingival recession defects in which he was trying to achieve and combine the advantage of both better access and graft stabilization in CAF and the preservation of the integrity of the papilla and better blood supply to the graft present in tunneling technique. The study concluded that the combination of both techniques in the same surgical design can have the potential to enhance flap and graft vascularization and improve clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes. To our knowledge, there is no conducted randomized clinical trials comparing the tunneled coronally advanced flap technique to the coronally advanced flap for gingival depth reduction.

So, this clinical trial aims to address this gap of the literature.

• Percentage of mean root coverage (MRC%) [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Percentage of complete root coverage (CRC%) [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Gingival Recession Width [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Gingival Thickness [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Keratinized Tissue Width [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Clinical Attachment Level [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Probing Pocket Depth [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Pink Esthetic Score [Срок оценки: 6 months]
• Post-operative pain [Срок оценки: 2 weeks]
• Post-operative patient satisfaction [Срок оценки: 2 weeks, 6 months]
• Root coverage esthetic score [Срок оценки: 6 months]