The three approaches are superior to CAF alone for root coverage. EMD provides highest levels of CRC; however, the addition of CM increases gingival thickness. The combination approach does not seem justified.

Root coverage procedures improve patient OHRQoL by impacting on a wide range of dimensions, perceived after reduction of CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction of patients with GRs treated with CAF + CM, CAF + EMD, and CAF + CM + EMD.

NCT02459704.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate, histomorphometrically, the use of collagen matrix (CM) and/or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for the treatment of dehiscence‐type recession defects in minipigs.MethodsEight healthy, male, young BR‐1 minipigs, with no periodontal disease were treated. Bilateral dehiscence‐type defects were surgically created on the buccal of the mandibular premolars (PI and PII). After 30 days, the defects were randomly assigned to four groups: coronally advanced flap (CAF); CAF + CM; CAF + EMD; and CAF + CM + EMD (split‐mouth design). The evaluated parameters (mm): total defect length; new cementum (NC); new bone (NB); gingival margin position; total epithelium length; epithelium on the root; connective tissue adaptation; and soft tissue thickness (STT).ResultsThe EMD‐treated groups showed a superior length of NC [4.13 ± 1.22 (CAF + EMD); 3.95 ± 1.11 (CAF + CM + EMD); 2.94 ± 0.77 (CAF + CM); 2.72 ± 0.81 (CAF), P = 0.02] and NB [3.21 ± 0.68 (CAF + CM + EMD); 3.01 ± 0.56 (CAF + EMD); 2.15 ± 0.47 (CAF + CM); 2.29 ± 0.82 (CAF), P = 0.005]. The CAF and CAF + CM groups showed a superior epithelial length when compared to EMD‐treated groups after 3 months. A superior STT was observed for CAF + CM + EMD group (1.5 ± 0.33) when compared with the other groups [1.09 ± 0.26 (CAF + EMD); 1.04 ± 0.34 (CAF + CM); and 1.14 ± 0.29 (CAF), P = 0.03].Conclusion(s)The results of the present study indicate that EMD application, irrespective of the combination with CM, may improve the periodontal regeneration of dehiscence‐type defects in this animal model.