A comparison of 2 root coverage techniques: guided tissue regeneration with a bioabsorbable matrix style membrane versus a connective tissue graft combined with a coronally positioned pedicle graft without vertical incisions. results of a series of consecutive cases.

Root coverage procedures have become an important part of periodontal therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare 2 techniques, 1) guided tissue regeneration (GTR) with a bioabsorbable polylactic acid softened with citric acid ester membrane and 2) the connective tissue graft combined with a coronally positioned pedicle graft without vertical incisions. The GTR procedure produced a mean root coverage of 92.3% and the connective tissue graft combined with a coronally positioned pedicle graft, 95.0%. This difference was not statistically significant. Both procedures produced similar reductions in recession depth, recession width, and probing depth. The connective tissue graft combined with a coronally positioned pedicle graft resulted in a greater increase in the amount of keratinized tissue. Based on this study, both procedures can result in statistically similar amounts of mean root coverage, but the results are not identical. In most cases, the connective tissue with coronally positioned pedicle graft produced a more bulky result than guided tissue regeneration. Therefore, the procedures are not interchangeable.