JICDRO is a UGC approved journal (Journal no. 63927)
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 126-134

Comparative evaluation of root coverage with amniotic membrane under macrosurgical and microsurgical approach: A prospective clinical trial

Department of Periodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. N V SG Sruthima
Department of Periodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jicdro.jicdro_75_21

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: Gingival recession is a major concern as it causes unesthetic appearance during smiling, dentinal hypersensitivity, and root caries. Several surgical procedures have been undertaken to cover these exposed root surfaces, with the most predictable and effective being coronally advanced flap (CAF) with subepithelial connective tissue graft. Because amniotic membrane (AM) contains embryonic stem cells, it can be utilized as a possible autograft/periodontal-guided tissue regeneration substitute. Magnification improves visibility and causes less tissue trauma during surgery. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of root coverage with AM utilizing a conventional macrosurgical technique (MaT) versus microsurgical technique (MiT) employing loupes. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 24 patients, 12 of whom were treated using MaT and 12 utilizing MiT with 4x magnification loupes. Clinical parameters such as amount of root coverage in terms of vertical gingival recession (VGR), horizontal gingival recession (HGR), increase in width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), clinical attachment loss, and patient satisfaction analysis for the evaluation of discomfort, dentinal hypersensitivity, and esthetics were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results: Both the groups demonstrated improvement in all clinical parameters. However, the test group showed a significant reduction in VGR and HGR with a mean difference of 0.95 mm (P = 0.007) and 2.167 mm (P = 0.002) at 6 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean WKG and hypersensitivity scores between the two groups. Conclusion: Both treatment approaches, i.e., MaT and MiT with the use of AM, were effective in improving the clinical parameters and the amount of root coverage. However, the test group showed a better reduction in discomfort and hypersensitivity postoperatively with enhanced esthetic outcomes. Clinical Relevance: Magnification-assisted root coverage attained predictable outcome.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal