Background: Evaluate the use of collagen matrix (CM) as adjunctive to coronally advanced flap (CAF versus CAF + CM) to treat gingival recession (GR) associated with non-carious cervical lesion-combined defects (CDs).Methods: Sixty-two patients presenting 62 CDs (RT1 GR and non-carious cervical lesion (NCCLs) were randomly allocated to either CAF group (n = 31): partial restoration of the NCCL and CAF; or to CAF + CM group (n = 31): partial restoration of the NCCL and CAF associated with CM. Clinical, esthetic, patientcentered outcomes, and restorative parameters were assessed. Results: After 12 months, CD coverage were 55.2% for CAF and 54.4% for CAF + CM (P = 0.8). Recession reduction were 1.9 ± 0.8 mm for CAF and 2.0 ± 0.7 mm for CAF + CM (P = 0.6). CAF+CM resulted in higher increase in keratinized tissue (KT) width (CAF: 0.3 ± 0.7 mm; CAF + CM: 0.9 ± 0.8 mm; P = 0.004) and KT thickness gain (CAF: 0.1 ± 0.3 mm; CAF + CM: 0.7 ± 0.2 mm; P = 0.001). Both treatments presented low postoperative pain and resulted in esthetics improvements. In addition, no restoration was lost, 27.4% showed a reduction of the superficial polishing, and 8% showed marginal staining, but still clinically acceptable. Conclusion: Partial resin composite restoration (with the apical limit up to 1 mm of the estimated CEJ) and CAF alone or combined with CM are suitable for treating CDs. The use of CM provided additional benefits in terms of KT width and thickness gain. (NCT03341598).

The presence of a tooth-surface defect, such as a non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL), associated with sites of gingival recession (GR) defects creates a combined soft tissue/tooth defect (CD) that requires a different treatment plan. This study aimed to critically review the literature regarding the available treatment protocols for CDs and suggest a new decision-making process. NCCLs were classified as Class A-: the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) was visible and the root surface discrepancy was < 0.5 mm (no step); Class A+: CEJ was visible and the root surface discrepancy was > 0.5 mm (with a step); Class B-: unidentifiable CEJ without a step; Class B+: unidentifiable CEJ with a step. NCCLs affecting both root and crown surfaces (Class B) lead to CEJ destruction and consequently eliminate an important landmark used before and after root coverage procedures. The depth of the root surface discrepancy is vital owing to its possible impact on soft tissue adaptation after healing, which, in turn, may influence the treatment options, namely the use of graft and/or composites to compensate for the discrepancy. Clinically, a step with horizontal depth greater than 0.5 mm should be recognized as the minimum threshold value to define this condition. Extremely deep defects tend to assume a V-shaped topography. Therefore, extremely deep V-shaped defects were classified into subclasses A+V, a V-shaped defect, and B+V, a V-shaped defect with loss of CEJ, for management considerations. The treatment options, supported by the literature, and a decision-making process to deal with each condition are presented.

Background This study was conducted to assess the clinical, immunological, and patient‐centered outcomes of microcurrent electrotherapy on palatal wound healing. Methods This was a parallel, double‐masked randomized clinical trial, in which 53 patients with ridge preservation indications were selected and randomly assigned to one of two groups. In the control (sham) group (n = 27), palatal wounds, after free gingival grafts (FGG) harvest, received sham application of electrotherapy. In the test (electrotherapy treatment [EE]) group (n = 26), palatal wounds, after FGG harvest, received application of microcurrent electrotherapy protocol. Clinical parameters, patient‐centered outcomes, and inflammatory markers were evaluated, up to 90 days postoperatively. Results The EE group achieved earlier wound closure (P <0.001) and epithelialization (P <0.05; P = 0.03) at 7 and 14 days after harvest when compared with the sham group. Painful symptomatology was reported less frequently in the EE group than in the sham group at 3‐day follow‐up (P = 0.008). Likewise, an improvement in Oral Health Impact Profile was reported 2 days after the procedure by the EE group (P = 0.04). In addition, favorable modulation of inflammatory wound healing markers occurred when electrotherapy was applied. Conclusion Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of a low‐intensity electrotherapy protocol may accelerate palatal wound healing and decrease patient discomfort after FGG harvest.