title: An evaluation of the effectiveness and predictability of transpositional flap vs connective tissue graft for coverage of Miller's class-I and class-II facial marginal tissue recession lesions: a clinical study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There has been no study to date comparing the effectiveness and predictability of transpositional flap (TF) with that of the gold standard connective tissue graft (CTG) for root coverage. This study was performed during 2001-2002 at Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai India.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effectiveness and predictability of TF vs CTG for coverage of Miller's class I and class II facial marginal tissue recession defects.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty cases fulfilling the selection criteria were identified and randomly allotted to two groups: group I (TF, 10 cases) and group II (CTG, 10 cases). Registered parameters included plaque index (PI), defect-specific plaque index (DPI), gingival index (GI), defect-specific gingival index (DGI), recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), probing depth (PD), attachment level (AL), width of keratinized tissue (KT), percentage defect coverage (DC), and percentage root coverage (RC).
  
  
  RESULTS
  For group I: preoperative PI, DPI, GI, DGI, RD, PD, KT, and RC were 0.38 ± 0.14, 1.1 ± 0.57, 0.02 ± 0.02, 0.36 ± 0.29, 4.45 ± 2.0, 1.5 ± 0.71, 1.45 ± 1.30, and 68.57 ± 14.36, respectively; the corresponding postoperative values were 0.38 ± 0.11, 0.36 ± 0.29, 0.01 ± 0.01, 0.10 ± 0.16, 3.2 ± 2.44, 1.1 ± 0.32, 2.65 ± 1.03, and 77.40 ± 17.23. For group II the preoperative PI, DPI, GI, DGI, RD, PD, KT, and RC were 0.77 ± 0.5, 1.53 ± 0.63, 0.12 ± 0.18, 0.59 ± 0.62, 4.95 ± 1.59, 1.9 ± 0.74, 0.50 ± 1.08, and 65.05 ± 11.22, respectively, and the corresponding postoperative values were 0.49 ± 0.32, 0.8 ± 0.50, 0.03 ± 0.53, 0.03 ± 0.10, 0.90 ± 0.88, 1.2 ± 0.42, 4.4 ± 1.07, and 93.65 ± 6.18, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The TF technique for coverage of single tooth buccal recession defects of Miller's class I and class II types in mandibular anterior teeth was neither effective nor predictable in defect coverage and defect elimination.
authors.affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
authors.forename: Om N
authors.initials: ON
authors.lastname: Baghele
authors.forename: Dilip G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Pol
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003238:Connective Tissue / Q000637:transplantation; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005544:Forecasting; D005881:Gingiva / Q000473:pathology / Q000637:transplantation*; D005889:Gingival Recession / Q000145:classification / Q000601:surgery*; D005891:Gingivitis / Q000145:classification; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000601:surgery; D007633:Keratins; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017622:Periodontal Attachment Loss / Q000145:classification; D010512:Periodontal Index; D010514:Periodontal Pocket / Q000145:classification; D013524:Surgical Flaps / Q000145:classification*; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000601:surgery; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D007633:Keratins