Einstein International Journal Organization(EIJO)

Background: The objective of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the semilunar coronally repositioned flap and coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedure in the treatment of Miller’s class I gingival recession defects in maxillary teeth.

Material And Methods: 4 patients, with Miller’s class I gingival recession defects were selected and randomly divided into two Groups 1 / Sites 1: - CAF, Group 2/ Site 2: - SCRF Clinical parameters plaque index, gingival index, width of keratinized gingiva, clinical attachment loss, recession width, recession height and percentage of root coverage were recorded at baseline, 1 month and 3 months.

Results: In both intergroup and intragroup comparison of recession height was statistically non-significant (p >0.05) with comparative less mean recession height in group 1 in 3 months. In terms of recession width, the intergroup comparison showed statistically non-significant among 2 groups but in intra group comparison it was statically significant (p≤ 0.05) with comparative more recession width in group 1 at 3 months.

Conclusion: CAF is predictable in treatment of gingival recession. It provides consistently better result than SCRF for the treatment of Miller’s class 1 gingival recession defect.

Keywords: Coronally Advanced Flap, Gingival Recession, Root Coverage, Semilunar Flap

1. Skurska A, Dolinska E, Mileaski R, Sobaniec S. The assessment of the influence of vertical incisions on the aesthetic outcome of the Miller class I and II recession treatment: a split-mouth study. J. Clin Periodontal 2015; 42: 756–763.
2. DeSanctis M, Zucchelli G. Coronally advanced flap: a modified surgical approach for isolated recession type defects. Three-year results. J Clin Periodontal. 2007; 34:262–68. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.2006.01039.
3. Zucchelli G, Mele M, Mazzotti C, Marzadori M. Coronally Advanced Flap with and Without Vertical Releasing Incisions for the Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions: A Comparative Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial. J Periodontal. July 2009:1083-1094
4. Moka LR, Boyapati R, Srinivas M. Comparison of coronally advanced and semilunar coronally repositioned flap for the treatment of gingival recession. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014 Jun;8(6):ZC04.
5. Albonni H, Hamadah O, Dayoub S. Comparison of a semilunar coronally positioned flap and conventional coronally advanced flap for the treatment of gingival recession: A split- mouth, Randomized Prospective Comparative Controlled Clinical Trial,’ World Journal of Dentistry, 2020; 11, pp.3-11.