ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of the partial-thickness non-advanced tunnel technique (TUN) versus the coronally advanced flap (CAF), both combined with a connective tissue graft, in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions.Materials and methodsTwenty-nine patients (83 teeth) affected by multiple gingival recessions were treated in two clinical centers with either the test (TUN) or the control (CAF) intervention combined with a connective tissue graft. Outcomes at 3 and 6 months after surgery included complete root coverage (CRC—primary outcome), mean root coverage (mRC), changes in recession depth (RD), probing pocket depth (PPD), and keratinized tissue height (KT). Root sensitivity and root coverage esthetic score (RES) were also evaluated at 6-month examination. Surgery duration, wound healing index (WHI), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were additionally considered.ResultsAt 6 months, CRC was observed in 80.9% and 79.5% of the teeth treated with TUN and CAF, respectively (odds ratio = 1.2;p= 0.802). No differences between groups were also observed in terms of mRC (TUN = 94.0%; CAF = 91.1%), RD and PPD reductions, root sensitivity, RES, and WHI. KT increase was significantly higher in teeth treated with TUN (Difference in Means – MD =  − 1.0 mm;p= 0.001). Surgery duration was shorter (MD =  − 19.3 min;p= 0.001), and patients reported less intra-surgical pain (MD =  − 16.4;p= 0.028) as well as postoperative morbidity in TUN compared with CAF.ConclusionsBoth surgical interventions showed a similar efficacy in terms of root coverage, albeit TUN was associated with a higher increase in KT and with a milder patient’s surgical experience.Clinical relevanceBoth techniques have shown similar efficacy for the coverage of exposed root surfaces, although clinicians may consider TUN as less invasive.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT05122468)Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-023-04975-7.