Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation

Authors

  • Zaklina Menceva Department of Oral Surgery, University Dental Clinical Centre St. Pantelejmon, Faculty of Dentistry, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Oliver Dimitrovski Department of Oral Surgery and Imlantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje
  • Mirjana Popovska Department of Oral Pathology and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Spiro Spasovski Ordinary General Dentistry Dr. Spasovski, Skopje
  • Vancho Spirov Department of Oral Surgery, University Dental Clinical Centre St. Pantelejmon, Faculty of Dentistry, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Gordana Petrusevska Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.127

Keywords:

Gingival recession, Free gingival graft, Mucograft, Elastic fibres, Collagen fibres, Connective tissue

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The correction of the gingival recession is of esthetical and functional significance, but the tissue regeneration can only be confirmed by a histological examination.

AIM: This study aims to make a comparison between the free gingival graft and the autograft.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 24 patients with single and multiple gingival recessions. Twelve patients were treated with a free gingival graft and the other twelve with a micrograft. Six months after the surgical procedure, a micro-punch biopsy of the transplantation area was performed. The tissue was histologically evaluated, graded in 4 categories: immature, mature, fragmented and edematous collagen tissue. The elastic fibres were also examined and graded in three categories: with a normal structure, fragmented rare and fragmented multiplied.

RESULTS: Regarding the type of collagen tissue that was present, there was a significant difference between the two groups of patients, with a larger number of patients treated with a micrograft showing a presence of mature tissue, compared to the patients treated with a free gingival graft. A larger number of patients in both of the groups displayed elastic fibres with a rare fragmented structure; 33.3% of the patients showed a normal structure; 50% demonstrated a normal structure.

CONCLUSION: The patients treated with a free gingival graft showed a larger presence of fragmented collagen tissue and fragmented elastic fibres, whereas a mature tissue was predominantly present in the surgical area where a Geistlich Mucograft was placed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Chambrone L, Sukekava F, Araujo MG, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA, Lima LA, Root-coverage procedures for thetreatment of localized recession-type defects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009; 15(2):CD007161.

Van Dyke TE. The management of inlamation in periodontal disease. J Periodontol. 2008; 79(8 Suppl):1601-1608. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080173 PMid:18673016 PMCid:PMC2563957

Souza SL, Macedo GO, Tunes RS, Silveira e Souza AM, Novaes Jr, AB, Grisi MF et al. Subepitelial connective tissue graft for root coverage in smokers and non smokers: a clinical and histologic controlled study in humans. J Periodontol. 2008; 79 (6):1014-1021. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070479 PMid:18533778

Chambrone L, Chambrone D, PustiglioniFE,Chambrone LA, Lima LA, Can subepitelial connective tissue grafts be considered the gold standard procedure in the treatment of Miller Class I and II recession-typedefect? J Dent. 2008; 36(9):659–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.007 PMid:18584934

Goldstein M, Boyan BD, Cochran DL, Schwartz Z,Human histology of a new attachment after root coverageusingsubepithelial connective tissue graft, J Clin Periodontol, 2001, 28(7):657–662. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028007657.x PMid:11422587

Mcguire MK, Cochran DL,Evaluation of human recessiondefects treated with coronally advanced flaps and eitherenamel matrix derivative or connective tissue. Part 2: Histologicalevaluation. J Periodontol. 2003; 74(8):1126–1135. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2003.74.8.1126 PMid:14514225

Raspperini G, Silvestri M, Schenk RK, Nevins ML,Clinicaland histologic evaluation of human gingival recessiontreated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft andenamel matrix derivative (Emdogain): a case report. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000; 20(3):269–275.

Wara-aswapati N, Pitiphat W, Chandrapho N, Rattanayatikul C, Karimbux N. Thickness of palatal masticatory mucosa associated with age. Journal of periodontology. 2001; 72(10):1407-12. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2001.72.10.1407 PMid:11699483

Vitkov L, Krautgartner WD, Hannig M. Surfacemorphology of pocket epithelium. Ultrastruct Pathol. 2005; 29(2):121-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01913120590916832 PMid:16028668

Song JE, Um YJ, Kim CS, Choi SH, Cho KS, CK, et al. Thickness of posterior palatal masticatory mucosa: the use of computerized tomography. J periodontol. 2008; 79(3):406-412. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070302 PMid:18315422

Lima RS, Peruzzo DC, Napimoga MH, Saba-Chujfi E, Santos-Pereira SA, Martinez EF. Evaluation of the biological behavior of Mucograft® in human gingival fibroblasts: an in vitro study. Brazilian dental journal. 2015; 26(6):602-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201300238 PMid:26963203

Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sager M, Herten M, Sculean A, Becker J. Biodegradation of differentlycross-linked collagen membranes: an experimental study inthe rat Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:369–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01108.x PMid:15877758

Rothamel D, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Herten M, Scherbaum Wand Becker J. Biocompatibility of various collagenmembranes in cultures of human PDL fibroblasts andhuman osteoblast-like cells Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15:443–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01039.x PMid:15248879

Harris RJ, Harris LE, Harris CR, Harris AJ. Evaluation of root coverage with two connective tissue grafts obtained from the same location. Int J Periodontol Rest Dent. 2007; 27(4): 333-339.

Schmitt CM, Tudor C, Kiener K, Wehrhan F, Schmitt J, Eitner S, Agaimy A, Schlegel KA. Vestibuloplasty: porcine collagen matrix versus free gingival graft: a clinical and histologic study. Journal of periodontology. 2013; 84(7):914-23. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120084 PMid:23030237

Schmitt CM, Moest T, Lutz R, Wehrhan F, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA. Longâ€term outcomes after vestibuloplasty with a porcine collagen matrix (Mucograft®) versus the free gingival graft: a comparative prospective clinical trial. Clinical oral implants research. 2016; 27(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12575

McGuire MK, Scheyer ET. Xenogeneic collagen matrix with coronally advanced flap compared to connective tissue with coronally advanced flap for the treatment of dehiscence-type recession defects. Journal of Periodontology. 2010; 81(8):1108-17. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2010.090698 PMid:20350159

Published

2018-03-27

How to Cite

1.
Menceva Z, Dimitrovski O, Popovska M, Spasovski S, Spirov V, Petrusevska G. Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2018 Mar. 27 [cited 2023 Feb. 4];6(4):675-9. Available from: https://oamjms.eu/index.php/mjms/article/view/oamjms.2018.127

Issue

Section

D - Dental Sciences

Most read articles by the same author(s)