Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 957–964 | Cite as

Structural and histological differences between connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palatal mucosa or from the tuberosity area

  • I. Sanz-MartínEmail author
  • E. Rojo
  • E. Maldonado
  • G. Stroppa
  • J. Nart
  • M. Sanz
Original Article

Abstract

Summary

Tuberosity grafts had a greater percentage of lamina propria and lower percentage of submucosa when compared to lateral palate grafts.

Objective

The study aims to understand the differences in the structural composition of soft tissue autografts harvested from the lateral palate or the tuberosity.

Material and methods

Patients were randomly allocated to receive autografts harvested either from palatal or tuberosity sites to augment horizontal volume deficiencies around single-tooth implants. Tissue biopsies were analyzed for histological and histo-morphometric analysis. Picro-sirius red stain was used to evaluate collagen 1 and 3. Also, immuno-histochemical analysis was performed against MMP1, MMP2, cytokeratin-10, cytokeratin-13, and lysine hydroxylase-2.

Results

Twenty specimens were harvested from 9 subjects in the lateral palate group (PG) and 11 subjects in the tuberosity group (TG). The percentage of lamina propria represented 51.08% in the PG group and 72.79% in the TG group, while the area of submucosa was minimal in the TG group representing 4.89% of the total sample vs 25.75% in the PG. The total area of COL-1 and 3 in the TG was 1.19 ± 0.57 and 0.72 ± 0.44 mm2, respectively, while in the PG, the corresponding values were 1.4 ± 0.7 and 1.04 ± 0.5 mm2. The immuno-histochemical analysis generally showed a higher expression of LLH-2, MMP2, CYT-10, and CYT-13 in the TG when compared with the PG.

Conclusion

Tuberosity grafts had a greater percentage of lamina propria and lower percentage of submucosa. The collagen content in the lamina propria was similar for both groups while the immuno-histochemical profile showed differences in the antibody expression of the epithelial cells.

Clinical relevance

Tuberosity grafts had more lamina propria and less submocusa, which may be beneficial for volume augmentation.

Keywords

Histology Connective tissue Soft tissue Soft tissue graft Dental implants Palate 

Notes

Funding

The study was partially funded by a Young Researcher Grant (14–114) from the Osteology Foundation, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethic approval was obtained from the regional ethical committee (PER-ECL-2011-10-NF). The present investigation was registered in clinicaltrials.gov with the reference NCT03090906.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Chambrone L, Tatakis DN (2015) Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP regeneration workshop. J Periodontol 86(2 Suppl):S8–S51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cairo F (2017) Periodontal plastic surgery of gingival recessions at single and multiple teeth. Periodontol 2000 75(1):296–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt DD (2014) Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol 41(Suppl 15):S6–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thoma DS, Buranawat B, Hammerle CH, Held U, Jung RE (2014) Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 41(Suppl 15):S77–S91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muller HP, Heinecke A, Schaller N, Eger T (2000) Masticatory mucosa in subjects with different periodontal phenotypes. J Clin Periodontol 27(9):621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris RJ (2003) Histologic evaluation of connective tissue grafts in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23(6):575–583Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jung UW, Um YJ, Choi SH (2008) Histologic observation of soft tissue acquired from maxillary tuberosity area for root coverage. J Periodontol 79(5):934–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zuhr O, Baumer D, Hurzeler M (2014) The addition of soft tissue replacement grafts in plastic periodontal and implant surgery: critical elements in design and execution. J Clin Periodontol 41 Suppl 15:S123–S142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertl K, Pifl M, Hirtler L, Rendl B, Nurnberger S, Stavropoulos A, Ulm C (2015) Relative composition of fibrous connective and fatty/glandular tissue in connective tissue grafts depends on the harvesting technique but not the donor site of the hard palate. J Periodontol 86(12):1331–1339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zucchelli G, Mele M, Stefanini M, Mazzotti C, Marzadori M, Montebugnoli L, de Sanctis M (2010) Patient morbidity and root coverage outcome after subepithelial connective tissue and de-epithelialized grafts: a comparative randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 37(8):728–738Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zucchelli G, Mazzotti C, Mounssif I, Mele M, Stefanini M, Montebugnoli L (2013) A novel surgical-prosthetic approach for soft tissue dehiscence coverage around single implant. Clin Oral Implants Res 24(9):957–962Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dellavia C, Ricci G, Pettinari L, Allievi C, Grizzi F, Gagliano N (2014) Human palatal and tuberosity mucosa as donor sites for ridge augmentation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34(2):179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rojo E, Stroppa G, Sanz-Martin I, Gonzalez-Martin O, Santos Alemany A, Nart J (2018) Soft tissue volume gain around dental implants using autogenous subepithelial connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palate or tuberosity area. A randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 45:495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varghese F, Bukhari AB, Malhotra R, De A (2014) IHC profiler: an open source plugin for the quantitative evaluation and automated scoring of immunohistochemistry images of human tissue samples. PLoS One 9(5):e96801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu SK, Lee BH, Lee MH, Cho KH, Kim DK, Kim HJ (2013) Histomorphometric analysis of the palatal mucosa associated with periodontal plastic surgery on cadavers. Surg Radiol Anat 35(6):463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rich L, Wittaker P (2005) Collagen and picrosirius red staining: a polarized light assesment of fibrilar hue and spatial distribution. Braz J Morphol Sci 22(2):97–104Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manjunatha BS, Agrawal A, Shah V (2015) Histopathological evaluation of collagen fibers using picrosirius red stain and polarizing microscopy in oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Cancer Res Ther 11(2):272–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arun Gopinathan P, Kokila G, Jyothi M, Ananjan C, Pradeep L, Humaira Nazir S (2015) Study of collagen birefringence in different grades of oral squamous cell carcinoma using Picrosirius red and polarized light microscopy. Scientifica (Cairo) 2015:802980Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumari K, Ghosh S, Patil S, Augustine D, Samudrala Venkatesiah S, Rao RS (2016) Expression of type III collagen correlates with poor prognosis in oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Investig Clin DentGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grimm PC, Nickerson P, Gough J, McKenna R, Stern E, Jeffery J, Rush DN (2003) Computerized image analysis of Sirius red-stained renal allograft biopsies as a surrogate marker to predict long-term allograft function. J Am Soc Nephrol 14(6):1662–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diaz Encarnacion MM, Griffin MD, Slezak JM, Bergstralh EJ, Stegall MD, Velosa JA, Grande JP (2004) Correlation of quantitative digital image analysis with the glomerular filtration rate in chronic allograft nephropathy. Am J Transplant 4(2):248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tanriverdi-Akhisaroglu S, Menderes A, Oktay G (2009) Matrix metalloproteinase-2 and -9 activities in human keloids, hypertrophic and atrophic scars: a pilot study. Cell Biochem Funct 27(2):81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ulrich D, Ulrich F, Unglaub F, Piatkowski A, Pallua N (2010) Matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases in patients with different types of scars and keloids. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63(6):1015–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sawaf MH, Ouhayoun JP, Forest N (1991) Cytokeratin profiles in oral epithelial: a review and a new classification. J Biol Buccale 19(3):187–198Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feghali-Assaly M, Sawaf MH, Serres G, Forest N, Ouhayoun JP (1994) Cytokeratin profile of the junctional epithelium in partially erupted teeth. J Periodontal Res 29(3):185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pelissier A, Ouhayoun JP, Sawaf MH, Forest N (1992) Changes in cytokeratin expression during the development of the human oral mucosa. J Periodontal Res 27(6):588–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sawaf MH, Ouhayoun JP, Shabana AH, Forest N (1992) Cytokeratins, markers of epithelial cell differentiation: expression in normal epithelia. Pathol Biol (Paris) 40(6):655–665Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ouhayoun JP, Gosselin F, Forest N, Winter S, Franke WW (1985) Cytokeratin patterns of human oral epithelia: differences in cytokeratin synthesis in gingival epithelium and the adjacent alveolar mucosa. Differentiation 30(2):123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Sanz-Martín
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • E. Rojo
    • 2
  • E. Maldonado
    • 1
  • G. Stroppa
    • 2
  • J. Nart
    • 2
  • M. Sanz
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Periodontology, Faculty of OdontologyUniversity Complutense of MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of PeriodontologyUniversitat Internacional de Catalunya (UIC)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations