Sammanfattning
Several classification systems have been applied for grading of gingival recessions. The most common one is Miller's classification. An optimal classification system should not only be a diagnostic tool, but also predict the outcome of surgical therapy. Recently, some criticism has been proposed to Miller's classification due to imperfect grading of gingival recessions and lack of predicting the outcome of mucogingival surgery.
The purpose of this article was to critically focus on Millers classification and compare the use of Miller's classification ("the gold standard») with Cairo's classification when it comes to predicting the treatment outcome following surgical treatment of different classes of gingival recessions.
To illustrate these issues two patients with gingival recession were treated. Case 1 was diagnosed with a Miller Class II recession on 43, whereas Case 2 had a Miller Class III on 41. Both patients were treated with a connective tissue graft in combination with an envelope technique. Complete root coverage was achieved in both cases. The critical appraisal of Miller's classification and the outcomes of the surgical therapy, support the criticism against Miller's classification. As a diagnostic tool, Miller's classification does not capture all classes of gingival recessions. The surgical treatment outcome of gingival recession with no loss of interdental attachment (Miller I and II) was correctly predicted, whereas the predictability of Class III recessions was imperfect. Cairo's classification appears to predict the treatment outcome more correctly when it comes to Class III recessions.