Autologous connective tissue graft or xenogenic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession. 36-month follow-up of a randomized multicentre trial.

AIM: To report the 36-month follow-up of a trial comparing the adjunct of a xenogenic collagen matrix (CMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) to coronally advanced flaps (CAF) for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 125 subjects (61 CMX) with 307 recessions in 8 centres from the parent trial were followed-up for 36 months. Primary outcome was change in position of the gingival margin. Multilevel analysis used centre, subject and tooth as levels and baseline parameters as covariates. RESULTS: No differences were observed between the randomized and the follow-up population. Average baseline recession was 2.6 ± 1.0 mm. 3-year root coverage was 1.5 ± 1.5 mm for CMX and 2.0 ± 1.0 mm for CTG (difference of 0.32 mm, 95% CI from -0.02 to 0.65 mm). The upper limit of the confidence interval was over the non-inferiority margin of 0.25 mm. No treatment differences in position of the gingival margin were observed between 6- and 36-month follow-up (difference 0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.29 mm). CONCLUSION: CMX was not non-inferior with respect to CTG in multiple adjacent recessions. No differences in stability of root coverage were observed between groups and in changes from 6 to 36 months. Previously reported shorter time to recovery, lower morbidity and more natural appearance of tissue texture and contour observed for CMX in this trial are also relevant in clinical decision-making.

Xenogenic collagen matrix or autologous connective tissue graft as adjunct to coronally advanced flaps for coverage of multiple adjacent gingival recession: Randomized trial assessing non-inferiority in root coverage and superiority in oral health-related quality of life.

AIM: To evaluate the non-inferiority of the adjunct of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) to coronally advanced flaps (CAF) for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions and compare superiority in patient-reported outcomes (PROM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-seven subjects (92 CMX) with 485 recessions in 14 centres were randomized and followed up for 6 months. Patients filled daily diaries for 15 days to monitor patient-reported experience. The primary outcome was changed in position of the gingival margin. Multilevel analysis used centre, subject and tooth as levels and baseline parameters as covariates. RESULTS: Average baseline recession was 2.5 ± 1.0 mm. The surgery was 15.7 min shorter (95%CI from 11.9 to 19.6, p < .0001) and perceived lighter (11.9 VAS units, 95%CI from 4.6 to 19.1, p = .0014) in CMX subjects. Time to recovery was 1.8 days shorter in CMX. Six-month root coverage was 1.7 ± 1.1 mm for CMX and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm for CTG (difference of 0.44 mm, 95%CI from 0.25 to 0.63 mm). The upper limit of the confidence interval was over the non-inferiority margin of 0.25 mm. Odds of complete root coverage were significantly higher for CTG (OR = 4.0, 95% CI 1.8-8.8). CONCLUSION: Replacing CTG with CMX shortens time to recovery and decreases morbidity, but the tested generation of devices is probably inferior to autologous CTG in terms of root coverage. Significant variability in PROMs was observed among centres.