Free gingival graft and acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation: a 15-year clinical study
This study evaluated clinical outcomes of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft compared with autogenous free gingival graft (FGG) for gingival augmentation after 15 years.
Material and methods
Twenty-two patients were originally included and evaluated by de Resende et al. (Clin Oral Investig 23:539–550, 2019), and 12 accepted to participate in this longitudinal evaluation. Clinical parameters evaluated were recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and soft tissue thickness (TT). In addition, esthetic perception was evaluated by patients and by a calibrated periodontist. Data were evaluated by ANOVA complemented by Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
After 15 years, both treatments provided a significant increase in KTW and TT but with superior results for the FGG group (p < 0.05). No differences were observed between groups for PD and CAL. In the ADM group, RD significantly increased in long term, as well as the rate of tissue contraction. The percentage of shrinkage for the ADM group was 59.6%. Conversely, the FGG group presented a creeping attachment of 17.6% and RD significantly decreased in long term. The ADM group presented superior results considering professional esthetic perception.
Both treatments longitudinally promoted significant gain of keratinized tissue width and thickness with superior outcomes for the FGG group. The ADM group demonstrated more tissue contraction and gingival recession whereas the FGG group presented creeping attachment. Professional esthetic perception was superior for the ADM group.
This study added important clinical data with long-term evaluation of ADM compared with FGG.
KeywordsMucogingival surgery Grafts Acellular dermal Gingiva Postoperative period
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior Brasil (CAPES)-Finance code 001. Part of this study was supported by a grant (no. 99/09834-2) from FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation). The work was financially supported by the Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics of Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Nevins M, Nevins ML, Kim SW, Schupbach P, Kim DM (2011) The use of mucograft collagen matrix to augment the zone of keratinized tissue around teeth: a pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 31:367–373Google Scholar
- 5.Feitosa DS, Santamaria MP, Sallum EA, Nociti Junior FH, Casati MZ, Toledo S (2008) Indicações atuais dos enxertos gengivais libres. RGO 56(Suppl. 2):S1–S6Google Scholar
- 6.Björn H (1963) Free transplantation of gingiva propria. Odont Revy 14:323Google Scholar
- 10.Callan DP, Silverstein LH (1998) Use of acellular dermal matrix for increasing keratinized tissue around teeth and implants. Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent 10:731–734Google Scholar
- 14.De Resende DRB (2004) Avaliação comparativa clínica e histológica de enxertos gengivais livres autógenos e de matriz dérmica acelular alógena na criação e manutenção de uma faixa de mucosa ceratinizada em humanos. Teses Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo, Bauru (SP)Google Scholar
- 21.Zucchelli G, Mele M, Stefanini M, Mazzotti C, Marzadori M, Montebugnoli L et al (2010) Patient morbidity and root coverage outcome after subepithelial connective tissue and deepithelialized grafts: a comparative randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 37(Suppl.8):S728–SS38Google Scholar
- 24.Frost NA, Mealey BL, Jones AA, Huynh-Ba G (2010) Periodontal biotype: gingival thickness as it relates to probe visibility and buccal plate thickness. J Periodontol 86(Suppl.10):S1141–S1149Google Scholar
- 25.Egreja AM, Kahn S, Barceleiro M, Bittencourt S (2012) Relationship between the width of the zone of keratinized tissue and thickness of gingival tissue in the anterior maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 32(Suppl.5):573–579Google Scholar
- 26.Manjunath RGS, Rana A, Sarkar A (2015) Gingival biotype assessment in a healthy periodontium: transgingival probing method. J Clin Diagn Res 9(Suppl.5):S66–S69Google Scholar