Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
A Novel Approach to Monitoring Graft Neovascularization in the Human Gingiva
Published on: January 12, 2019
Comparative Effectiveness of Tunneling vs. Coronally Advanced Flap Techniques for Root Coverage: A 6-12-Month
Luis Chauca-Bajaña1, Pedro Samuel Vásquez González2, María José Alban Guijarro3
1College Dentistry, University of Guayaquil, Guayas 090101, Ecuador.
Background:
Gingival recession is a common condition involving apical displacement of the gingival margin, leading to root surface exposure and associated complications such as dentin hypersensitivity and root caries. Among the most effective treatment options are the tunneling technique (TUN) and the coronally advanced flap (CAF), both combined with connective tissue grafts (CTGs). This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of TUN + CTG and CAF + CTG in terms of root coverage and keratinized tissue width (KTW) over a 6-12-month follow-up.
Methods:
A randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted following CONSORT guidelines (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06228534). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either TUN + CTG or CAF + CTG. Clinical parameters, including gingival recession depth (REC) and KTW, were assessed at baseline as well as 6 months and 12 months postoperatively using a calibrated periodontal probe. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to compare outcomes over time, with a significance level set at 5%.
Results:
Both techniques demonstrated significant clinical improvements. At 6 months, mean root coverage was 100% in CAF + CTG cases and 97% in TUN + CTG cases, while complete root coverage (REC = 0) was observed in 100% and 89% of cases, respectively. At 12 months, root coverage remained stable, at 99% in the CAF + CTG group and 97% in the TUN + CTG group. KTW increased in both groups, with higher values observed in the CAF + CTG group (3.53 mm vs. 3.11 mm in TUN + CTG at 12 months). No significant postoperative complications were reported.
Conclusions:
Both TUN + CTG and CAF + CTG are safe and effective techniques for treating RT1 and RT2 gingival recession, offering high percentages of root coverage and increased KTW. While CAF + CTG achieved slightly superior coverage and tissue gain, the TUN was associated with better aesthetic outcomes and faster recovery, making it a valuable alternative in clinical practice.
