Early wound healing and patient morbidity after single-incision vs. trap-door graft harvesting from the palate—a clinical study
- 528 Downloads
The aim of this study is to compare wound healing and patient pain perception of single-incision (single-incision, modified single-incision) and trap-door surgical techniques to harvest subepithelial connective tissue grafts from the palate.
Material and methods
Thirty-six patients were selected for root coverage procedures with subepithelial connective tissue grafts and randomly assigned to two single-incision groups or a trap-door group (n = 12/group). One week after surgery, a modified early-wound healing index (EHI), patient pain and painkiller intake were recorded. Follow-up was performed until complete epithelialization was achieved.
Single-incision techniques showed significantly improved early healing over trap-door approaches. Specifically, the mean EHI was 2.50 ± 1.14 for single-incision techniques, as compared to 3.33 ± 1.30 for trap door. The incidence of secondary healing was significantly lower in the single-incision groups. Concomitantly, the cumulative dosage and duration of painkiller intake were significantly reduced, as compared to the trap-door group.
Within the limits of this trial, single-incision techniques can lead to improved early healing and reduced patient pain after subepithelial connective tissue graft harvesting than trap-door techniques.
Avoiding trap-door incisions for harvesting of connective tissue grafts may reduce patient morbidity.
KeywordsConnective tissue graft Wound healing Palate Single incision Trap door
The authors acknowledge the help of Mr. Benedikt Schumann in the field of patient management and coordination.
Source of funding
This study was funded solely by the authors’ institutions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Chambrone L, Sukekava F, Araujo MG, Pustiglioni FE, Chambrone LA and Lima LA (2009) Root coverage procedures for the treatment of localised recession-type defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD007161Google Scholar
- 3.Santamaria MP, Casati MZ, Nociti FH Jr, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Aukhil I, Wallet SM, Shaddox LM (2013) Connective tissue graft plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions: microbiological and immunological results. Clin Oral Investig 17:67–77. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0690-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Harris RJ (1997) A comparison of two techniques for obtaining a connective tissue graft from the palate. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 17:260–271Google Scholar
- 8.Hürzeler M, Weng D (1999) A single incision technique to harvest subepithelial connective tissue graft from the palate. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 19:279–287Google Scholar
- 9.Thalmair T, Fickl S, Hinze M, Bolz W, Wachtel H (2010) Modifizierte Technik zur Entnahme eines subepithelialen Bindegewebstransplantates. Parodontologie 21:100–105Google Scholar
- 14.Zuhr O, Fickl S, Wachtel H, Bolz W, Hurzeler MB (2007) Covering of gingival recessions with a modified microsurgical tunnel technique: case report. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 27:457–463Google Scholar
- 19.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 37:728–738. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01550.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Lorenzana ER, Allen EP (2000) The single-incision palatal harvest technique: a strategy for esthetics and patient comfort. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 20:297–305Google Scholar