Comparative evaluation of effect of injectable platelet-rich fibrin with collagen membrane compared with collagen membrane alone for gingival recession coverage

BACKGROUNDCollagen membrane and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have emerged as vital biomaterials in the field of periodontal regeneration. Minimally invasive techniques are being preferred by most periodontists, as it is patient compliant with fewer post-surgical complications as compared to conventional surgical techniques. Thus, in this study we have evaluated the effect of injectable PRF (i-PRF) with collagen membrane compared with collagen membrane alone using vestibular incision subperiosteal tunnel access (VISTA) technique for gingival recession coverage. AIMTo compare the efficacy of VISTA using collagen membrane with collagen membrane soaked in injectable PRF for gingival recession coverage. METHODSA split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was designed;13 subjects having at least 2 teeth indicated for recession coverage were enrolled in this study. The sites were randomly assigned to control group (VISTA using collagen membrane alone) and the test group (VISTA using collagen membrane with i-PRF). The clinical parameters assessed were pocket depth, recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), relative attachment level, keratinised tissue width (KTW), keratinised tissue thickness (KTT), and percentage root coverage. RESULTSRD showed a statistically significant difference between the test group at 3 mo (0.5 ± 0.513) and 6 mo (0.9 ± 0.641) and the control group at 3 mo (0.95 ± 0.51) and 6 mo (1.5 ± 0.571), with P values of 0.008 and 0.04, respectively. RW also showed a statistically significant difference between the test group at 3 mo (1 ± 1.026) and 6 mo (1.65 ± 1.04) and the control group at 3 mo (1.85 ± 0.875) and 6 mo (2.25 ± 0.759), with P values of 0.008 and 0.001, respectively. Results for KTW showed statistically significant results between the test group at 1 mo (2.85 ± 0.489), 3 mo (3.5 ± 0.513), and 6 mo (3.4 ± 0.598) and the control group at 1 mo (2.45 ± 0.605), 3 mo (2.9 ± 0.447), and 6 mo (2.75 ± 0.444), with P values of 0.04, 0.004, and 0.003, respectively. Results for KTT also showed statistically significant results between test group at 1 mo (2.69 ± 0.233), 3 mo (2.53 ± 0.212), and 6 mo (2.46 ± 0.252) and the control group at 1 mo (2.12 ± 0.193), 3 mo (2.02 ± 0.18), and 6 mo (1.91 ± 0.166), with P values of 0.001, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively. The test group showed 91.6%, 81.6%, and 67% root coverage at 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo, while the control group showed 82.3%, 66.4%, and 53.95% of root coverage at 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo, respe