Gingival recession is commonly managed with soft tissue surgical techniques aimed at root coverage and improvement in clinical attachment. This randomized split-mouth clinical trial sought to determine whether a microsurgical approach (performed under 3.5X magnification) offers advantages over conventional surgery when both use a collagen matrix as the grafting material. The trial evaluated both clinical measures and patient-centred outcomes to assess effectiveness from clinician and patient perspectives.
The trial enrolled 29 adult patients presenting with bilateral gingival recession in the maxillary canine and/or premolar region. The study used a split-mouth randomisation: for each participant, bilateral recession sites were allocated to either the test group (microsurgery) or the control group (conventional surgery). The publication lists the work as a randomized controlled clinical trial and comparative study, with trial details reported in Clin Ter (2026). Author affiliations include the Division of Periodontology and the Department of Anatomy at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, and the Division of Periodontics at AIIMS Delhi.
Both treatment arms used a collagen matrix as the grafting material for coronal advancement/root coverage procedures. The test intervention was a microsurgical technique performed under 3.5X magnification. The control intervention was a conventional surgical technique without microsurgical magnification. The source reports the two approaches as differing by magnification and microsurgical instrumentation and technique; procedural specifics beyond the use of 3.5X magnification for microsurgery were not detailed in the abstract.
Clinical and patient-reported parameters were recorded at baseline and postoperatively at 1, 3 and 6 months. Key clinical measures included gingival recession height (GRH), gingival recession width (GRW), clinical attachment level gain (CAL gain), keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) and keratinized tissue width (KTW). Patient-centred outcomes recorded included patient satisfaction score, hypersensitivity score, and root aesthetic scores.
At the 6-month follow-up both the microsurgical and conventional groups showed statistically significant improvements in all reported clinical parameters: reductions in gingival recession height and width, gains in clinical attachment level, and increases in keratinized tissue thickness and width. When comparing the two groups directly (intergroup comparison), no statistically significant differences were observed for these clinical parameters. The abstract does not provide numerical values, confidence intervals, or p-values; those details were not reported in the abstract.
Unlike the clinical measures, patient-centred parameters differed between groups. The microsurgical group demonstrated significantly better results for patient satisfaction, reduction in dentin hypersensitivity, and root aesthetic scores compared with the conventional surgery group. These differences favoured the microsurgical approach, indicating that patients perceived superior comfort, sensitivity reduction, and aesthetics when treated under magnification with the collagen matrix graft.
The authors conclude that both microsurgical and conventional approaches using a collagen matrix yield comparable clinical improvements at 6 months for the treatment of gingival recession. However, the microsurgical technique produced significantly better patient-reported outcomes. They advise that selection of surgical approach should consider patient priorities alongside practical factors such as cost, procedural time, and the clinician’s microsurgical proficiency.
The abstract reports primary clinical and patient-centred outcomes but does not include detailed numerical results, variability measures, or statistical values in the summary. Procedural details beyond magnification level for the microsurgery arm are not provided in the abstract. Clinicians interpreting these findings should consult the full text (full text link provided by the source) for detailed methodology, exact outcome measures, statistical analyses, and potential subgroup findings before applying results to practice. The trial population comprised adults with bilateral maxillary canine/premolar recession; applicability to other tooth locations or to multi-rooted teeth is not addressed in the abstract.
Both conventional and microsurgical techniques using a collagen matrix can produce meaningful clinical improvement in gingival recession by 6 months. If patient-centred outcomes—comfort, sensitivity relief, and aesthetic satisfaction—are priorities and resources and surgical expertise allow, a microsurgical approach may offer advantages. Cost, operative time, and operator training remain important considerations when choosing technique.