Vol. 11, Issue 3, Part F (2025)

Introduction: Gingival recession in the esthetic zone poses both functional and esthetic challenges, often necessitating surgical intervention to restore soft tissue harmony and patient comfort. Among the various root coverage techniques, the Modified Vestibular Incision Subperiosteal Tunnel Access (M-VISTA) and Zucchelli’s coronally advanced flap technique have gained clinical acceptance for the treatment of Miller’s class I and class II recession defects. This clinical study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and patient-centered outcomes of these two techniques over a six-month follow-up period.

Materials and Method: 20 systemically healthy subjects with Miller’s class I/II gingival recession defects were enrolled and randomly allocated into two groups (10 in each group): Group A was treated using the M-VISTA technique and Group B with Zucchelli’s coronally advanced flap technique. Clinical parameters including Recession depth (RD), Recession width (RW), Gingival thickness, Keratinized tissue width (KTW) and Relative attachment level (RAL), were recorded at baseline, 1month, 3 month, and 6 months. Patient centered outcomes such as esthetic satisfaction (Patient esthetic score) and post-operative comfort (Verbal rating score) were also evaluated at respective intervals.

Results: Both techniques resulted in significant improvement in all clinical parameters from baseline to 6 months. Zucchelli’s technique showed slightly better outcomes in terms of RD reduction, RAL gain and KTW increase. The esthetic score was higher in the Zucchelli’s group throughout all follow-up intervals. Although both groups reported satisfactory healing and comfort, the verbal rating scale showed marginally better comfort in the M-VISTA group during the early healing phase.

Conclusion: Both M-VISTA and Zucchelli’s techniques are effective for the management of Miller’s class I/II gingival recession. However, Zucchelli’s technique demonstrated slightly superior clinical and esthetic outcomes, while M-VISTA offered better post-operative comfort during the initial healing phase. These findings support the use of both techniques depending on clinical priorities and patient preferences.