The purpose of this single-center, parallel armed, an assessor and statistician blinded, 6-month randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical results of micro and macrosurgical techniques in the treatment of localized gingival recession defects. Miller Class I and II gingival recession defects, at least 3.0 mm d eep, were selected and randomly assigned to receive micro or macrosurgical techniques. Both techniques were performed using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. Plaque and gingival indices, gingival recession depth and width, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, width of keratinized gingiva, aesthetic score and percentage of root coverage, postoperative complaints, and satisfaction of the participants completing the study were evaluated at follow -up 1st, 3rd and 6th months. A total of 20 defects at 17 individuals, aged 19-53 years, were evaluated. Defects were randomized to microsurgery (n=10) and macrosurgery (n=10) groups. The microsurgery was superior to the macrosurgery technique concerning a more significant amount of keratinized tissue at 6 months follow up ( p<0.05). In contrast, no significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of the other clinical periodontal parameters, postoperative complaints, or self - reported aesthetic satisfaction at any of the follow-up periods (p>0.05). The percentage of the root coverage for the micro and macrosurgical techniques after 6 months were 92.0% and 71.0%, respectively ( p>0.05). The clinical results of microsurgery do not show superiorit y over conventional surgical techniques in the treatment of localized gingival recession defects using a coronally positioned flap with a subepithelial connective tissue graft.