Enamel Matrix Derivative in The Treatment of Gingival Recession

Objective: In this study, clinical effectiveness of two techniques, coronally advanced flap in combination with EMD (CAF+EMD) versus subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), were assessed for gingival recession treatment Methods: Eleven systemically healthy volunteer patients with bilateral Miller’s Class I or II gingival recession defects in maxillary canine-premolar area were selected from patients referred to Periodontology Clinic at the University of Selcuk School of Dentistry for their periodontal treatments. A total of 13 bilateral defects were randomly treated either with CAF+EMD or SCTG using a standard mucogingival surgical procedure. Periodontal status of defect associated teeth were evaluated by plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), papillary bleeding index (PBI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL). Additionally, clinical measurements regarding recession defects included, gingival recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), width of keratinized gingiva (WKG), attached gingiva (AG), each measured at mid-buccal area to the nearest 0.5mm. Measurements were taken at baseline, the 6th month and the 2nd year. Results: Both groups demonstrated decreased RD, RW measurements and gain of CAL at the end of the study, however, mean root coverage (68.77% versus 42.92%) achieved. were significantly greater for SCTG when compared to CAF+EMD (P<0.05). Increase of WKG were significantly greater for SCTG when compared to CAF+EMD (P<0.05) at the 6th month but at the 2nd year it wasn’t significant (P>0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed for other clinical parameters and measurements (P>0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained from this study suggests that the use of EMD in combination with CAF does not seem to improve clinical outcomes of gingival recession treatment when compared to SCTG.