10/14/2026
TONIGHT: Free masterclass on Gingival recession: When to graft, restore, or monitor
Register through the link in bio!
Two similar-looking recessions can have very different root coverage potential.
Cairo et al. (2011) classified gingival recession by comparing interproximal clinical attachment loss with facial CAL:
— RT1: No interproximal attachment loss. Complete root coverage is a reasonable objective, subject to other clinical and surgical factors.
— RT2: Interproximal attachment loss ≤ facial CAL. Complete coverage remains possible in selected cases, depending on the extent of loss and treatment approach.
— RT3: Interproximal attachment loss > facial CAL. Complete coverage is not expected with conventional root-coverage procedures; plan for recession reduction with residual exposure.
👉 Measure CAL from the corresponding CEJ to the base of the sulcus/pocket at each site. Facial recession depth alone does not provide that comparison.
Then refine the prognosis. CEJ detectability, tooth position, root prominence and papillary anatomy affect assessment of the intended margin.
Defect dimensions, gingival thickness, keratinized tissue, vestibular depth and frenal pull influence surgical planning.
Smoking, plaque control and surgical ex*****on also affect healing and maintenance.
We’ll explore these decisions tonight in Gingival Recession: When to Graft, Restore or Monitor. Reserve your free seat through the link in bio.
Reference:
Cairo F, Nieri M, Cincinelli S, Mervelt J, Pagliaro U. The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38:661-666.
CourseKarma.com 👉 Helping you Find the Best Dental CE X Abbas Hassanali