Comparison of Two Techniques in Gingival Recession Treatment. One-year Clinical Follow-up Study

42 patients were treated either with E-CTG (N=20) or SCAF (N=22). The recordings included clinician-based (recession depth, recession width, probing depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, tissue thickness, clinical attachment gain (CAG), root coverage (RC), keratinized tissue change (KTC)) and patient-based (wound healing index (WHI), dentine hypersensitivity (DH), tissue appearance, patient expectations and aesthetics) parameters that were taken at baseline, T1 (sixth week), T2 (sixth month) and T3 (first year).