Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Sub Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoration using Coronally Advanced Flap for the treatment of Gingival Recession associated with Non-Carious Cervical Lesion- In Vivo Study

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoration using Coronally Advanced Flap for the treatment of isolated Gingival recession associated with Non-Carious Cervical Lesion.

Materials and Methods:The study population consisted of a total of 10 patients with 20

sites between 18 to 45 years with Miller’s Class I and Class II gingival recession associated

with 1-2 mm deep NCCL in maxillary anteriors and/or premolars. For group I, a coronally advanced flap (CAF) with Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft was performed. For group II, a CAF with Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoration was performed. At 6 months, post operatively all parameters like Plaque and Gingival Indices, Relative Gingival Recession Depth, Probing Depth, Non-Carious Cervical Lesion Height Reduction, and gain in Relative Attachment Level, increase in the Width of Keratinized Gingiva and reduction in the Dentinal Hypersensitivity were recorded again for statistical evaluation.

Results:Statistically significant reductions were recorded in PI, GI, RGRD, PD, RAL, WKG and NCCLH in both the groups and at all time points when compared to baseline (p<0.05) and significant improvements associated with root coverage percentage were detected at all time points. (p<0.05) At baseline and 6 months there was no statisticallysignificant differences between the groups at any follow-up time point in PI, GI, RGRD, PD, RAL, WKG and NCCLH. The percentages of rootcoverage at 6 month follow-up were 87.1% for test group 62.9% for control group.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the results from this study indicate that in both the groups there was a statistically significant improvement from baseline to 6 months post treatment with respect to improvement. Statistically Significant differences were noted with better results in test group. At 6 months, intergroup comparison did not show any statistically significant difference with respect to all clinical parameters except for NCCLH and VAS score; wherein significant differences were noted.