To systematically review existing scientific literature to determine, compare, and evaluate whether concentrated growth factors (CGF) or connective tissue grafts (CTG) is a better treatment alternative for patients with marginal tissue recession (MTR).

Electronic databases like PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were screened from the last 20 years reporting treatment of MTR using CGF or CTG and other techniques. Periodontal parameters like probing depth, clinical attachment level, recession depth, recession width, keratinized tissue width, root coverage, increase in gingival thickness and plaque index, and gingival index were compared. Standardized mean difference was used as a summary statistic measure with a random effect model and P value <0.05 as statistically significant.

Six studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis, of which only 4 studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate through standardized mean difference signifies that CGF was superior to CTG in the reduction of probing depth, gingival index, and plaque index and gain in clinical attachment level while CTG was superior in reducing the recession depth and recession width. Both the procedures had an overall equal effect on keratinized tissue width and root coverage, but these differences were statistically insignificant ( P >0.05). Publication bias through the funnel plot showed symmetric distribution without systematic heterogeneity.

The present study suggests that treatment of MTR with CTG or CGF resulted in clinically favorable outcomes, but no statistically significant differences was observed between these 2 procedures regarding the outcome.

To assess the effectiveness of the combination of tunnel technique (TT) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) for root coverage in treating multiple gingival recessions (GR) and compare with the connective tissue graft (CTG).

Forty patients with Miller Class I and II maxillary or mandibular GR were randomly divided into two groups as follows: TT + CTG and TT + CGF. The results at baseline and 6 months were evaluated for the following clinical parameters: complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), gingival thickness (GT), gingival recession width (RW), gingival recession depth (RD), and keratinized tissue width (KTW).

At 6 months, a statistically significant difference was found in RD, RW, MRC, CRC, KTW, and GT compared with the baseline (p < 0.05). MRC was determined 89.52±16.36% in the TT + CTG and 76.60±24.10% in the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CRC was achieved in 66.7% of the TT + CTG and 47.4% of the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). The increase in KTW and GT was significantly better in the TT + CTG group compared to the TT + CGF (p < 0.05).

The study showed that TT + CGF did not improve the results as much as TT + CTG in the treatment of Miller Class I and II GR. However, this finding is not sufficient to advocate the true clinical effects of CGF on GR treatment with TT.

CGF could not serve as a direct alternative biomaterial to the gold standard CTG.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT04561947.

The tunnel technique has shown promising results in treatment of gingival recession. Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) is considered effective for soft tissue regeneration since it is a rich source of growth factors.

This clinical trial aimed to assess the efficacy of PRGF along with the tunnel technique and connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recession.

In this controlled clinical trial, 20 areas around anterior and posterior teeth in 3 patients with gingival recession were bilaterally selected. The tunnel technique was used with and without PRGF in the test and control groups, respectively (10 areas in each group). The keratinized gingival width (KGW), clinical attachment level (CAL), clinical probing depth (PD), cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to mucogingival junction (MGJ) distance, and the esthetic visual analog scale (EVAS) score were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3 months, postoperatively. The gingival recession width (RW) and vertical recession depth (VRD) were assessed preoperatively and at 2 weeks and 3 months, postoperatively. The pain visual analog scale (PVAS) score was measured at 1, 3 and 7 days, post-treatment and the healing index (HI) was measured at 1, 3 and 7 days and 1 month, postoperatively. The root coverage percentage was assessed during 3 months. Paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA were used for statistical analyses. p Value< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Significant improvements were noted in all tested parameters in both groups (p< 0.05). The mean root coverage percentage after 6 months was 88.68%±20.69% and 78.77%±24.94% in the test and control groups, respectively. None of the tested parameters were significantly different between two groups (p> 0.05).

Treatment of gingival recession with the tunnel technique can yield favorable clinical outcome, irrespective of the employment of PRGF.

Subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) are commonly performed for the treatment of gingival recession due to their high predictability. This study evaluated and histologically compared connective tissue grafts in terms of the presence of epithelial remnants and composition of the tissue types that were present (epithelium, lamina propria, and submucosa).

Ten patients underwent epithelium removal using 2 different techniques: the use of a blade (group B) and through abrasion (group A). Twenty samples were collected and each tissue type was analyzed histologically in terms of its area, thickness, and proportion of the total area of the graft.

In 4 samples (40%) from group B (n=10) and 2 samples (20%) from group A (n=10), the presence of an epithelial remnant was observed, but the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Likewise, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the area, mean thickness, or proportion of the total area for any of the tissue types (P>0.05).

Histologically, SCTGs did not show statistically significant differences in terms of their tissue composition depending on whether they were separated from the epithelial tissue by abrasion or by using a blade.

Several researchers have tried to improve the results of gingival recession treatment techniques. One of the methods is to use growth factors The present study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of CAF (coronally advanced flap) + CTG (connective tissue graft) + PRGF (plasma rich in growth factors) in the treatment of Miller Class I buccal gingival recession.

Twenty-two teeth with Miller Class I gingival recession in 6 patients 26 ‒ 47 years of age were included in a split-mouth designed randomized controlled trial (RCT). In each patient, one side was treated with CAF + CTG + PRGF (test) and the other side was treated with CAF + CTG (control). The following parameters were measured before surgery and up to 6 months after surgery on the mid-buccal surface of the tooth: keratinized tissue width (KTW), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), vertical recession depth (VRD), recession depth (RD), gingival thickness (GT), root coverage in percentage (RC%) and the distance between the CEJ and mucogingival junction (MGJL). Data were analyzed with paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA.

After 6 months noticeable improvements were observed in both groups in all the variables measured except for PD; however, the differences between the two groups were not significant. RC% was 80 ± 25% and 67 ± 28% in the test and control groups, respectively, after 6 months.

Both CAF + CTG + PRGF and CAF + CTG treatment modalities resulted in favorable root coverage; however, the addition of PRGF added no measurable significant effect. Key words:Connective tissue graft, dental root coverage, gingival recession, growth factors, mucogingival surgery, periodontal plastic surgery.

The aim of the study was to carry out a review of published studies on various platelet products in Iranian studies.

Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles. Two review authors independently extracted data via a tested extraction sheet, and disagreements were resolved by a meeting with a third review author.

Bone disorders (25%), wound and fistula (16%), dental and gingival disorders (14%) and osteoarthritis (11%) have more relative frequency based on different fields.

The necessity of pursuing standard protocols in the preparation of platelet products, stating the precise content of platelets and growth factors, and long-term follow-up of study subjects were the most important points in Iranian studies.

Periodontal regeneration can be defined as complete restoration of lost periodontal tissues to their original architecture and function. A variety of treatment modalities have been proposed to achieve it. Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) is a concentrated suspension of growth factors that promotes restoration of lost periodontal tissues. The objective of the present study is to assess the effect of PRGF associated with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) versus GTR only in the treatment of intrabony defects (IBDs) in patients with chronic periodontitis (CP).

Patients with CP (n = 14) with 42 contralateral 2- and 3-walled defects were randomly assigned to test (PRGF+GTR) and control (GTR alone) treatment groups. Clinical and radiographic assessments performed at baseline and after 6 months were: 1) gingival index (GI), 2) probing depth (PD), 3) clinical attachment level (CAL), 4) radiologic defect depth, and 5) bone fill.

Comparison of parameters measured at baseline and after 6 months showed mean PD reduction of 3.37 ± 1.62 mm in the control group (P <0.001) and 4.13 ± 1.59 mm in the test group (P <0.001). There was a significant difference in mean change in CAL (P <0.001) in the control group (5.42 ± 1.99) and the test group (5.99 ± 1.77). Mean change in GI was 1.89 ± 0.32 and 1.68 ± 0.58 in the control group and test group, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.001). When compared between groups, clinical parameters did not show any statistically significant variations. Mean radiographic bone fill was 1.06 ± 0.81 and 1.0 ± 0.97 in the control group and test group, respectively. However, the difference was not statistically significant.

PRGF with GTR, as well as GTR alone, was effective in improving clinical and radiographic parameters of patients with CP at the 6-month follow-up. There was no additive effect of PRGF when used along with GTR in the treatment of IBDs in patients with CP in terms of both clinical and radiologic outcomes.

The aim of this study was to determine the clinical effect of concentrated growth factor (CGF) in combination with coronally advanced flap (CAF) compared to CAF alone for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (GRs).

Twenty patients with a total of 119 Miller Class I and II GRs in the maxilla were included to this study. Recessions were randomly treated according to a split-mouth design by means of CAF + CGF (test; 60 defects) or CAF (control; 59 defects). Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after surgery.

The mean root coverage (MRC) was 82.06% and 86.67%, complete root coverage (CRC) was 45.8% (27/59) and 56.7% (34/60) for CAF and CAF + CGF, respectively at 6th month. Statistically no difference was demonstrated between the two groups in terms of recession depth (RD), MRC and CRC at 6th month. The increase in width of keratinized gingiva (KGW) and gingival thickness (GT) were statistically significant in the CAF + CGF group compared to the CAF group at 6th month.

The use of CGF in combination with CAF did not provide additional benefits in RD, CRC and MRC. This study suggests that use of CGF + CAF may increase the success of GRs because of a significant increase in KGW and GT.