Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interaction between the recipient area and the graft is one of the key factors in the success of periodontal plastic surgery. This randomized controlled, split-mouth, double-blinded clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) and gingival unit graft (GUG) in achieving root coverage in localized (Recession Type 1) RT1 recession defects. METHODS: Twenty participants with forty bilateral recession defects randomly received EPG or GUG surgical treatment modalities for each of the recession defects. Clinical measurements recorded at baseline and after six months included recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and the average width of mesial and distal interdental papilla (aWIDP). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant greater mean root coverage (MRC) percentage at GUG sites (80.68 ± 16.12%) in comparison to EPG sites (71.05 ± 17.23%) (p = 0.01). The treatment satisfaction (p = 0.009) and aesthetic satisfaction (p < 0.001) experienced were significantly better for GUG as compared to EPG. The regression model (R (2) = 0.56) significantly predicted MRC percentage in GUG sites with baseline RD (β = -12.49; p = 0.02) and aWIDP (β = -9.31; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: GUG showed a better MRC, aesthetics and increased KTW. Root coverage procedures often need to suffice the dual objective of coverage and aesthetics at the same time. GUG is a simple modification of the conventional EPG that can provide better clinical and aesthetic outcomes.