Pericardium Membrane vs Advanced Platelet-rich Fibrin in the Treatment of Gingival Recession Using Pouch and Tunnel Technique: A Randomized Split-mouth Clinical Study

Aim of the study: The aim of this split-mouth clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pericardium membrane and advanced plateletrich fibrin (A-PRF) using the pouch and tunnel technique in the treatment of gingival recession. Materials and methods: A randomized split-mouth clinical study was done. Ten subjects who had bilateral multiple gingival recessions found in maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth or premolar teeth, classified as Miller’s class I and II, were selected for this study. In group A, 22 sites were treated with pericardium membrane, and in group B, 23 sites were treated with A-PRF using the pouch and tunnel technique. Gingival recession depth (GRd), width of the gingival recession, probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), width of the keratinized gingiva, and thickness of gingiva were determined on the 90th and 180th days. Descriptive data were recorded, and statistical analysis of the data was done. Results: In group A, a significant reduction was evident in the depth and width of gingival recession, from 2.36 ± 0.848 to 0.41 ± 0.59 and 2 ± 0.53 to 0.52 ± 0.511, respectively, from baseline to the 180th day. Additionally, improved CAL was seen in the intragroup comparison from baseline to the 90th and baseline to the 180th day in both groups. There was a better reduction in recession depth, and CAL increased in group A from baseline to the 90th day and baseline to the 180th day, which was statistically significant. There was a greater increase in keratinized tissue width of 2.91 ± 0.426 and gingival thickness (GT) of 1.31 ± 0.061 in group A compared to group B, which was statistically significant from baseline to the 180th day. Conclusion: This study confirms that pericardium membrane has better efficacy in terms of root coverage, keratinized tissue width, and GT compared to A-PRF, thus making it a better soft tissue regenerative graft. Clinical significance: PRF, which is most commonly used for root coverage, sometimes cannot be procured as the patient might be either anemic or reluctant to give blood. In those cases, instead of PRF, pericardium membrane is biocompatible and can be used as an alternative to A-PRF membrane for root coverage procedures. Pericardium membrane has shown promising results in root coverage procedures.

PRODUCTS USED: Heart, Membrane

World Journal of Dentistry