Background: The aim of this research was to determine and compare the clinical efficacy of leukocyte platelet rich fibrin (L-PRF) and advanced platelet rich fibrin (A-PRF) in combination with coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the treatment of gingival recession defects. Methods: Systemically healthy subjects presenting with 30 Miller’s class I or II gingival recession defects in maxillary anteriors and premolars, were either treated with CAF+L-PRF or CAF+A-PRF. Clinical parameters such as recession height (RH), width (RW), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue height (KTH) and width of attached gingiva (WAG) were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Gingival biotype was evaluated at baseline and 6 months post-surgery. Mean root coverage percentage (MRC%) was evaluated at 3 and 6 months. Results: Statistically significant reduction in mean RH was observed from baseline (2.53±0.74 mm), (2.63±0.82mm) to 6 months (0.87±0.834mm), (0.53±0.915mm) in CAF+L-PRF and CAF+A-PRF group respectively. The MRC% achieved at 6 months was 67.20±32.81 in CAF+L-PRF group and 81.66±28.21 in CAF+A-PRF group. Statistically significant gain in CAL, WAG and KTH were observed in both therapeutic groups (p<0.05). Intergroup analysis revealed no statistical significant differences among study parameters between groups at any time point (p value>0.05). Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, both L-PRF and A-PRF may be suggested as viable treatment options for the management of gingival recession in maxilla.

Introduction The purpose of this case series is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of advanced platelet‐rich fibrin (A‐PRF) in combination with coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the management of gingival recession defects and its first of its kind. Case series Fourteen systemically healthy patients presenting with 35 RT1 recession defects were treated with A‐PRF + CAF. Recession height (RH), recession width (RW), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue height (KTH), and width of attached gingiva (WAG) were measured at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Gingival thickness (GTH) and phenotype were evaluated at baseline and 6 months postsurgery. Mean root coverage percentage (MRC%) was estimated at 3 and 6 months. At the end of 6 months, esthetics was measured on the scale of visual analogue scale (VAS) and recession esthetic scale (RES). Statistically significant reduction in mean RH was observed from baseline (2.49 ± 0.65 mm) to 6 months (0.66 ± 0.80 mm). At 6 months, the MRC% attained was 75.94 ± 26.72. Complete root coverage was achieved in 18 sites. At 6 months, there was a significant gain in GTH, CAL, WAG, and KTH (p ≤ 0.001). The mean RES and VAS esthetic scores were 8.54 ± 1.57 and 8.83 ± 1.17, respectively. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study, A‐PRF may be suggested as a viable treatment option for the management of recession in maxillary anteriors and premolars.

No abstract