Free gingival graft and acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation: a 15-year clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study added important clinical data with long-term evaluation of ADM compared with FGG.

Acellular dermal matrix allograft versus free gingival graft: a histological evaluation and split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth controlled randomized clinical trial evaluated clinical and histological results of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADM) compared to autogenous free gingival graft (FGG) for keratinized tissue augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with the absence or deficiency of keratinized tissue (50 sites) were treated with FGG (control group) and ADM (test group). Clinical parameters included keratinized tissue width (KTW) (primary outcome), soft tissue thickness (TT), recession depth (RD), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Esthetic perception was evaluated by patients and by a calibrated periodontist using visual analog scale (VAS). Histological analysis included biopsies of five different patients from both test and control sites for each evaluation period (n = 25). The analysis included percentage of connective tissue components, epithelial luminal to basal surface ratio, tissue maturation, and presence of elastic fibers. Data were evaluated by ANOVA complemented by Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After 6 months, PD and CAL demonstrated no differences between groups. ADM presented higher RD compared to FGG in all periods. Mean tissue shrinkage for control and test groups was 12.41 versus 55.7%. TT was inferior for ADM group compared to FGG. Esthetics perception by professional evaluation showed superior results for ADM. Histomorphometric analysis demonstrated higher percentage of cellularity, blood vessels, and epithelial luminal to basal surface ratio for FGG group. ADM group presented higher percentage of collagen fibers and inflammatory infiltrate. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments resulted in improvement of clinical parameters, except for RD. ADM group presented more tissue shrinkage and delayed healing, confirmed histologically, but superior professional esthetic perception. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study added important clinical and histological data to contribute in the decision-making process between indication of FGG or ADM.

Prosthetic rehabilitation of a bone defect with a teeth-implant supported, removable partial denture.

The use of teeth-implant, mucosa-supported removable dentures for rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients involves highly complex biomechanical aspects. This type of prosthesis associates 3 kinds of support that react differently to the functional and parafunctional forces developed in the oral cavity. Although the construction of removable partial dentures may seem paradoxical when osseointegrated implants are placed, in some cases, this option is an excellent alternative to solve difficulties related to the anatomic, biologic, psychomotor, and financial conditions of the patient. This article reports on a case in which a teeth-implant, mucosa-supported removable partial denture was the option of choice for a patient with financial and anatomic limitations, having a large structural loss of the residual alveolar ridge caused by trauma by a gunshot injury at the mandible. The 5-year follow-up did not reveal any type of biomechanical or functional problem.