# Comparative Study of Two Root Coverage Procedures for Localized Gingival Recessions on Lower Anterior Teeth Using Partially De-Epithelialized Connective Tissue Graft (PE-CTG) Aided by a High-Speed Handpiece: A Retrospective Cohort Study

## TL;DR

This study compared two techniques for covering exposed tooth roots using tissue grafts and found both were similarly effective, though one was easier to perform.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of two root coverage techniques using PE-CTG aided by a high-speed handpiece, showing similar efficacy with one being more practical.

## Key findings

- Both tPECTG and vPECTG achieved over 87% root coverage with no significant difference between them.
- The average keratinized tissue gain was 3.48 mm, with tPECTG showing slightly higher values.
- vPECTG was found to be as effective as tPECTG but easier to perform.

## Abstract

Background and Objectives: Gingival recession is a common periodontal condition that can lead to aesthetic and functional problems if untreated, necessitating the development of effective root coverage techniques. The aim of this study was to compare two different root coverages for localized gingival recession on the lower anterior teeth using a partially de-epithelialized connective tissue graft (PE-CTG). Materials and Methods: This study included 18 patients (20 teeth) with lower anterior tooth recession. In the tPECTG group (seven patients, eight teeth), the recipient site was prepared with supraperiosteal tunneling. In the vPECTG group (11 patients, 12 teeth), the recipient site was prepared using the vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access technique. In both groups, partially de-epithelialized connective tissue was harvested from the hard palate using a high-speed handpiece diamond burr. The change in root coverage was evaluated based on vertical recession and keratinized tissue (KT) values before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Results: The mean root coverage was 89.01% across all cases, with the tPECTG and vPECTG groups achieving 87.85% and 89.78%, respectively. The average KT gain was 3.48 ± 1.37 mm, with the tPECTG group showing 3.94 ± 1.74 mm and the vPECTG group showing 3.17 ± 1.03 mm. No significant differences were found between the two groups for either parameter (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective case series, vPECTG was as effective as tPECTG, but easier. Moreover, in both groups, the keratinized gingival width increased, and the mucogingival junction was maintained.