JIOH on LinkedIn JIOH on Facebook
  • Users Online: 961
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 454-462

Evaluation of root biomodification as an adjunct to platelet-rich fibrin versus amniotic membrane and coronally advanced flap in class I and class II gingival recession defects: A randomized controlled study

Department of Periodontics, Panineeya Mahavidhyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rekha R Koduganti
Department of Periodontics, Panineeya Mahavidyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences, Road no. 5, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad 500060
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_70_23

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This study aimed to compare the effects of root bio modification only with coronally advanced flap (CAF; control group) versus placement of either platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) or amniotic membrane (AM) after root biomodification (test groups) using the CAF technique in class I or class II gingival recession defects. Hence, this study evaluated the role of root biomodification alone and as an adjunct with PRF or AM membrane in class I and class II gingival recessions. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized, parallel-arm, clinical trial conducted on 24 patients. Subjects were equally divided into three groups. Patients in group 3 (control group) were treated with CAF alone and hyaluronic acid (HA) root conditioning and those in group 2 underwent CAF with AM and HA root conditioning whereas those in group 1 underwent CAF with PRF and HA root conditioning for class I or class II gingival recessions. The clinical variables were assessed pre and 3 months and 6 months postsurgery. The visual analog scale (VAS) was assessed on the 10th and 30th day, postsurgery. Intragroup analysis was done by repeated one-way analysis of variance test followed by Bonferoni’s multiple comparisons test. Intergroup comparison used repeated two-way analysis of variance test for continuous data. All P value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: A comparison within the groups yielded insignificant results in group 3 (control group), whereas in group 1 (PRF + HA root conditioning) the probing depth (PD) and percentage root coverage (PRC) values did not improve significantly and in group 2 (AM + HA root conditioning) the PRC values did not show significant improvement. Between the groups, however, it was observed that the test groups 1 and 2 performed better than the control group related to all the clinical parameters and the VAS scores reflected superior results in group 2. Conclusion: CAF was effective as a treatment modality. The test group yielded a better percentage of root coverage than the control group, though statistically insignificant.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded12    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal