An interventional study of Tunnel technique and Connective tissue graft in Gingival Recession, sponsored by Bulent Ecevit University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-02-06.
Sponsored by Bulent Ecevit University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This randomized controlled clinical study aimed to evaluate the success of the combination of tunnel technique and concentrated growth factor membrane for root coverage in treating multiple gingival recessions and compare with the gold standard connective tissue graft.
The study included 108 defects in 40 patients with Miller Class I and II gingival recession. Gingival recession defects were randomly divided into two groups. Tunnel technique + connective tissue graft was applied to 20 patients in the control group (51 defects) and tunnel technique + concentrated growth factor membrane was applied to 20 patients in the test group (57 defects). The results at baseline and 6 months were evaluated for the following clinical parameters: Mean root coverage, complete root coverage, probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival recession depth, gingival recession width, keratinized tissue width and gingival thickness.
402 studies on the registry are indexed under Gingival Recession; 98 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 40 is above the median of 30 across 368 interventional studies indexed under Gingival Recession.
Browse Gingival Recession studies →Bulent Ecevit University is the lead sponsor of 45 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
The combined connective tissue graft (CTG) with tunnel technique (TT)
Procedure: Tunnel technique · Procedure: Connective tissue graft
The combined concentrated growth factor (CGF) membrane with tunnel technique (TT)
Procedure: Tunnel technique · Other: Concentrated growth factor membrane
After local anesthesia, the exposed root surfaces were mechanically treated with curettes. A tunnelling knives were used to prepare a split-thickness flap and create a continuous tunnel in the buccal soft tissues, following the intrasulcular incision with a #69 microblade. Split-thickness flap preparation was performed to beyond the mucogingival junction with supraperiosteal dissection by placing the tunneling knives to the soft tissue. This process was repeated by entering through the sulcus of each tooth. After the elevation of the flap, a papilla elevator placed under the flap was entered through the sulcus to mobilize the papilla, the periosteum at the base of the papilla was cut, and the full-thickness flap was elevated.
CTG was harvested using the de-epithelialized connective tissue graft technique. The epithelial tissue on the outer surface of the graft was removed with a 15 blade and a 1-mm-thick graft was obtained.
Intravenous blood samples were collected in without anticoagulant 10-mL tubes and immediately centrifuged in a CGF centrifuge machine using a program with the following features: 30 ̋ acceleration, 2 min at 2700 rpm, 4 min at 2400 rpm, 4 min at 2700 rpm, 3 min at 3000 rpm, and 36 ̋ deceleration and stop. After centrifugation, four layers were formed in the tube: the serum layer at the top, the second buffy coat layer, the third CGF layer containing GF and unipotent stem cells, and the red blood cell layer at the bottom. The resulting CGF was removed from the tube and separated from the red blood cell layer using microsurgical scissors.
Complete root coverage
Change from baseline in percentage of complete root coverage at 6th months.
Time frame: Six months
Mean root coverage
Change from baseline in percentage of root coverage at 6th months.
Time frame: Six months
Probing depth
Change from baseline in probing depth at 6th months. The distance between the sulcus base and the gingival margin the midbuccal aspect of the teeth
Time frame: Six months
Clinical attachment level
The changes in clinical attachment level after 6th months. Distance between the sulcus base and the CEJ in the midbuccal aspect of the teeth
Time frame: Six months
Gingival recession depth
The changes in gingival recession depth after 6th months. Distance between the gingival margin at the deepest point of recession
Time frame: Six months
Gingival recession width
The changes in gingival recession width after 6th months. Horizontal distance between the mesial and distal margin of the recession defect at the CEJ
Time frame: Six months
Keratinized tissue width
The changes in keratinized tissue width after 6th months. Distance between the gingival margin and the mucogingival junction
Time frame: Six months
Gingival thickness
The changes in gingival thickness after 6th months. Measured midbuccally from 2 mm apical to the gingival margin with a No: 20 endodontic spreader
Time frame: Six months
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Bulent Ecevit University