# Amniotic Membrane Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin for the Treatment of Gingival Recession Using the Vestibular Incision Subperiosteal Tunnel Access Technique: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

## TL;DR

This study compares amniotic membrane and platelet-rich fibrin for treating gum recession using a minimally invasive technique, finding both effective with no major differences.

## Contribution

A randomized clinical trial comparing two biomaterials in a minimally invasive approach for gingival recession.

## Key findings

- Both amniotic membrane and platelet-rich fibrin showed significant improvements in gum recession over six months.
- No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups except for pocket probing depth.
- Platelet-rich fibrin showed a temporary increase in probing depth that normalized by six months.

## Abstract

Background

Gingival recession (GR) results in significant functional and cosmetic concerns and manifests as a disintegration of soft and hard tissues. Recently, clinical research has increasingly focused on the development of minimally invasive surgical approaches that optimize clinical outcomes, alongside the incorporation of biomaterials capable of providing appropriate biological cues to support regenerative potential. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) technique, either with amniotic membrane (AM) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), for the treatment of Cairo’s RT 1 GR.

Methods

Seven systemically and periodontally healthy patients with Cairo's RT-1 GR at more than two adjacent teeth were recruited for the study. Patients were randomly assigned to Group I (PRF) and II (AM) (31 recession sites each). All recessions were treated with VISTA. Clinical parameters were measured at baseline and one, three, and six months after surgery, including pocket probing depth (PPD), recession height (RH), recession width (RW), width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), relative attachment level (RAL), and mean root coverage percent (MRC).

Results

All clinical parameters demonstrated statistically significant differences in both groups from the pre-operative to the six-month follow-up phase. Except for PPD, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In Group I, there was a significant increase in PPD after one month, which decreased at the six-month follow-up, while in Group II, there was a decrease in PPD from baseline to the six-month follow-up.

Conclusion

Both PRF and AM are effective in managing GR. Although AM showed slightly better results, it was statistically insignificant.