Introduction
Gingival recession is a prevalent issue among dental patients, leading to root exposure, sensitivity, and potential periodontal complications. As dental professionals, selecting the most effective and patient-friendly surgical technique is essential. This blog reviews a recent split-mouth randomized clinical trial comparing two leading techniques: Coronally Advanced Flap with Connective Tissue Graft (CAF + CTG) and the Pinhole Surgical Technique with Collagen Membrane (PST + CM).
Clinical Study Overview
A total of 36 patients with bilateral gingival recession defects were treated with both techniques in a controlled clinical study. The study assessed clinical outcomes and patient-centered factors over a one-year follow-up period.
Key Clinical Findings
- Recession Reduction:
- CAF + CTG: 1.98 mm ± 0.74 mm
- PST + CM: 1.97 mm ± 1 mm (P = .53)
- No significant difference in recession reduction.
- Root Coverage:
- CAF + CTG: 65.4% ± 24.6%
- PST + CM: 63.6% ± 24.5% (P = .72)
- Both methods provided comparable results.
- Clinical Attachment Level Gain:
- Both techniques demonstrated significant attachment gain (P = .9).
- Keratinized Tissue Width (KTW) Increase:
- CAF + CTG: Increased from 2.38 mm to 2.61 mm (P = .002)
- PST + CM: No significant change.
- Postoperative Pain and Patient Satisfaction:
- No statistically significant differences between the two techniques.
Clinical Implications for Periodontists and General Dentists
This study reinforces that both PST + CM and CAF + CTG are effective in treating gingival recession. While CAF + CTG remains the gold standard for increasing keratinized tissue width, PST + CM offers a viable, less invasive alternative with similar root coverage success. The choice of technique should be based on patient needs, anatomical considerations, and the clinician’s experience.
Conclusion
Both surgical approaches provide successful treatment outcomes for gingival recession defects. PST + CM stands out for its minimally invasive nature and reduced morbidity, making it a strong alternative for select cases.
FAQs for Dental Professionals
1. How does PST + CM reduce postoperative discomfort? PST + CM avoids the need for a donor site and sutures, leading to a faster, less painful recovery process.
2. When should a dentist opt for PST + CM instead of CAF + CTG? PST + CM is ideal for patients who prefer a minimally invasive procedure and do not require significant keratinized tissue width gain.
3. What follow-up care is required after these procedures? Both techniques require meticulous oral hygiene, regular professional cleanings, and monitoring for tissue stability over time.
English 
Spanish