Acellular dermal matrix allograft versus free gingival graft: a histological evaluation and split-mouth randomized clinical trial
- 255 Downloads
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).
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.
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.
This study added important clinical and histological data to contribute in the decision-making process between indication of FGG or ADM.
KeywordsGingival recession Mucogingival surgery Grafts Acellular dermal Gingiva
This study was supported by a grant (#99/09834-2) from FAPESP (São Paulo Research Foundation).
The work was 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.
- 1.Björn H (1963) Free transplantation of gingiva propria. Odont Revy 14:323Google Scholar
- 2.Sullivan HC, Atkins JH (1968) Free autogenous gingival grafts. I. Principles of successful grafting. Periodontics 6:121–129Google Scholar
- 5.Hall WB, Lundergan WP (1993) Free gingival grafts. Current indications and techniques. Dent Clin N Am 37:227–242Google Scholar
- 15.Borghetti A, Gardella JP (1990) Thick gingival autograft for the coverage of gingival recession: a clinical evaluation. Int J Periodont Rest Dent 10:217–229Google Scholar
- 16.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
- 17.Caffesse RG, Carraro JJ, Carranza FA (1972) Free gingival grafts in dogs, a clinical-histological study (Spanish). Rev Assoc Odont Argent 60:465–470Google Scholar
- 20.Shulman J (1996) Clinical evaluation of an acellular dermal allograft for increasing the zone of attached gingival. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 8:201–208Google Scholar
- 21.Silverstein LH, Duarte F (1998) Use of an acellular dermal allograft for soft-tissue augmentation. Dent Implantol Updat 9:61–64Google Scholar