Complications in the Use of Deepithelialized Free Gingival Graft vs. Connective Tissue Graft: A One-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

Silvestre Ripoll, Ángela Fernández de Velasco-Tarilonte, Beatriz Bullón, Blanca Ríos-Carrasco and Ana Fernández-Palacín
Additional contact information
Silvestre Ripoll: Clínica Dental Silvestre Ripoll, Marqués de Paradas 40 Local, 41001 Sevilla, Spain
Ángela Fernández de Velasco-Tarilonte: Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain
Beatriz Bullón: Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain
Blanca Ríos-Carrasco: Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Avicena S/N, 41009 Sevilla, Spain
Ana Fernández-Palacín: Departamento de Ciencias Sociosanitarias, Universidad de Sevilla, 41004 Sevilla, Spain

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 9, 1-12

Abstract: In the treatment of gingival recession, different surgical options have been described: free gingival grafts (FGG), connective tissue Grafts (CTG), and a more recent technique, de-epithelialized free gingival graft (DFGG). They are not procedures exempt from the appearance of complications. Most publications refer to postoperative complications, and there is limited literature regarding the development of late complications (weeks or months). Our working group carried out a study to describe the development of late complications associated with the use of DFGG in comparison with CTG, providing an incidence rate and a classification. Sixty-eight patients with mucogingival problems were selected, and divided into two groups: the Test Group, for which we used DFGG + Coronal Advancement Flap (CAF), and the Control Group (CTG + CAF). All patients were treated at the University of Seville’s dental school to solve mucogingival problems for aesthetic and/or functional reasons. A classification is proposed based on its severity; Major and Minor. Major complications included reepithelialization of the graft, epithelial bands, cul-de-sac, epithelial cysts, and bone exostoses. Minor complications included the graft´s color changes and superficial revascularization. Late major complications were only associated with the use of the DFGG, and the late minor complications developed with the use of the DFGG were much higher than those associated with CTG. CTG appears to be a safer procedure than DFGG in terms of late complications.

Keywords: free gingival grafts (FGG); connective tissue grafts (CTG); de-epithelialized free gingival graft (DFGG); late complications; reepithelialization; epithelial bands; cul-de-sac; epithelial cysts; bone exostoses; revascularization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4504/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/9/4504/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:9:p:4504-:d:542295

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().