The Efficacy of De-epithelialized Free Gingival Graft on Treatment of Multiple Gingival Recessions With Tunnel Technique

Gingival Recession Clinical Trial

Official title:

De-epithelialized Gingival Graft Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft in the Treatment of Multiple Adjacent Gingival Recessions Using the Tunnel Technique

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04291963
• Other study ID #: 36290600/110
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: December 9, 2017
• Est. completion date: August 1, 2019

Study information

• Verified date: February 2020
• Source: Gazi University
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The predictable treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) represents a major challenge in periodontal plastic surgeries due to MAGRs' complicated predisposing anatomic features, such as thin gingival phenotype or limited keratinized tissue. The present study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and postoperative morbidity of de-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) compared to subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) on the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) with tunnel technique (TUN). A total of 38 patients, who have been referred to the Gazi University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Periodontology, were randomly assigned to receive TUN in combination with either DGG or SCTG. Clinical measurements were recorded at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgeries. Immediately after surgery, a questionnaire was given to each patient evaluating postoperative pain, patients' discomfort, sensitivity and bleeding at 1, 2, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days after surgery. Moreover, the characteristics of the grafts harvested by these two different techniques were evaluated histopathologically and histomorphometrically.

Description:

The predictable treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs) represents a major challenge in periodontal plastic surgeries due to MAGRs' complicated predisposing anatomic features, such as thin gingival phenotype or limited keratinized tissue, variations in the depth and width of the adjacent recession defects, shallow vestibules and high frenum attachments. Furthermore, in these cases, wound healing is often more difficult due to factors such as larger avascular surface and poor blood supply.

The coronally advanced flap (CAF) or the tunnel technique (TUN) with graft-based subepithelial connective tissue procedures have been reported to be the most predictable methods for the treatment of MAGRs. On account of the advantages of TUN, including superior blood supply and advanced wound healing owing to its conservative characteristics associated with the flap elevation without papillae dissection or vertical releasing incisions, this approach has recently achieved popularity compared to other methods.

Although the use of connective tissue grafts (CTGs), together with various surgical techniques, has been accepted as "the gold standart" for the treatment of GRs, some disadvantages of CTG are underlined. Limited donor tissue in the cases where inadequate amount of palatal tissue thickness and/or a bigger dimension of CTG is needed, as in the treatment of MAGRs are claimed to be among those disadvantages (Zucchelli et al., 2010). Moreover, subepitelial CTG (SCTG), either harvested by 'trap-door' (TD) or 'single-incision' (SI) approaches, have been frequently associated with post-operative pain and discomfort, as well as palatal flap necrosis/dehiscence at the donor site.

To overcome these limitations, and obtain a firmer and uniform CTG, de-epithelializing of the free gingival grafts (FGG) have been proposed, especially when palatal fibromucosal tissue thickness is inadequate (≤2.5 mm) and a large graft dimension in apico-coronal or mesio-distal directions is required. De-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) have also been suggested to have less prone to post-operative shrinkage, because of obtaining larger amount of collagen-rich connective tissue from lamina propria, minimal amount of fatty/glandular tissue and less number of medium to large vessels. Previously it was reported that DGG applied with the TUN presented better manuplation in recipent area and reduced postoperative morbidity compared to a conventional CTG, and resulted in a successful root coverage outcome with increased both width and thickness of the keratinized tissue in the treatment of MAGRs. In a randomized clinical trial (RCT), Zuchelli et al. found no significant differences regarding post-operative pain and root coverage outcomes when compared SCTG and DGG in combination with CAF in the treatment of single or multiple GRs. However, a significant difference was observed in terms of keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) in favor of DGG, and this finding was attributed to the its characteristics of better stability, low shrinkage rates and to allow the incorporation of the portion of connective tissue closest to the epithelium. Despite all biologically advantages of DGG, there is scarce information in the literature on its clinical significance in combination with TUN compared to conventional CTG procedures in the treatment of MAGRs. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and postoperative morbidity of DGG compared to SCTG on treatment of MAGRs with TUN. The primary objective was to assess the root coverage outcomes of DGG versus SCTG with TUN at 1-year postoperatively. The secondary objectives were to evaluate postoperative patient morbidity of these procedures and the characteristics of the grafts harvested by these two different techniques histopathologically and histomorphometrically.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 38
• Est. completion date: August 1, 2019
• Est. primary completion date: June 1, 2019
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years to 60 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• • Age between 18 - 60 years,

• Non-smoker and systemically healthy,

• No active periodontal disease,

• Presence of at least two single-rooted teeth with Miller class I and/or II (RT1) (Cairo, Nieri, Cincinelli, Mervelt, & Pagliaro, 2011; Miller, 1985) buccal gingival recession defects =2 mm in depth

• Full mouth plaque and bleeding score of <15% and no probing depths >3 mm,

• Absence of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) and non-detectable cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) at the defect sites,

• No history of previous periodontal plastic surgery at the affected sites.

Exclusion Criteria:

• • Presence of caries lesions or restorations in the cervical area,

• Intake of medications which impede periodontal tissue health and healing,

• Medical contraindications for periodontal surgical procedures,

• Pregnancy and lactation.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Gingival Recession

Intervention

Procedure:
• DGG + TUN
In the DGG group, CTG was obtained at palatal mucosa by means of intra-oral de-epithelialization of the FGG using a 2.3 mm diameter diamond burr (801G/023, EMS, Aldrich Co., USA) with NaCL 0.9% saline irrigation
• SCTG + TUN
In SCTG group, graft was harvested through the single-incision approach at palatal mucosa

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Turkey	Sila Isler	Ankara

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Gazi University

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Turkey, 

References & Publications (23)

Aroca S, Barbieri A, Clementini M, Renouard F, de Sanctis M. Treatment of class III multiple gingival recessions: Prognostic factors for achieving a complete root coverage. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jul;45(7):861-868. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12923. Epub 2018 Jun — View Citation

Aroca S, Molnár B, Windisch P, Gera I, Salvi GE, Nikolidakis D, Sculean A. Treatment of multiple adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions with a Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tiss — View Citation

Azar EL, Rojas MA, Patricia M, Carranza N. Histologic and Histomorphometric Analyses of De-epithelialized Free Gingival Graft in Humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2019 Mar/Apr;39(2):221-226. doi: 10.11607/prd.3544. — View Citation

Bertl K, Pifl M, Hirtler L, Rendl B, Nürnberger S, Stavropoulos A, Ulm C. Relative Composition of Fibrous Connective and Fatty/Glandular Tissue in Connective Tissue Grafts Depends on the Harvesting Technique but not the Donor Site of the Hard Palate. J Pe — View Citation

Bosco AF, Bosco JM. An alternative technique to the harvesting of a connective tissue graft from a thin palate: enhanced wound healing. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2007 Apr;27(2):133-9. — View Citation

Bruno JF. Connective tissue graft technique assuring wide root coverage. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1994 Apr;14(2):126-37. — View Citation

Buti J, Baccini M, Nieri M, La Marca M, Pini-Prato GP. Bayesian network meta-analysis of root coverage procedures: ranking efficacy and identification of best treatment. J Clin Periodontol. 2013 Apr;40(4):372-86. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12028. Epub 2013 Jan 24. — View Citation

Chambrone L, Tatakis DN. Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2015 Feb;86(2 Suppl):S8-51. doi: 10.1902/jop.2015.130674. Review. — View Citation

de Sanctis M, Baldini N, Goracci C, Zucchelli G. Coronally advanced flap associated with a connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple recession defects in mandibular posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):623-3 — View Citation

Gobbato L, Nart J, Bressan E, Mazzocco F, Paniz G, Lops D. Patient morbidity and root coverage outcomes after the application of a subepithelial connective tissue graft in combination with a coronally advanced flap or via a tunneling technique: a randomiz — View Citation

Griffin TJ, Cheung WS, Zavras AI, Damoulis PD. Postoperative complications following gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontol. 2006 Dec;77(12):2070-9. — View Citation

Harris RJ. A comparison of two techniques for obtaining a connective tissue graft from the palate. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997 Jun;17(3):260-71. — View Citation

Harris RJ. Root coverage in molar recession: report of 50 consecutive cases treated with subepithelial connective tissue grafts. J Periodontol. 2003 May;74(5):703-8. — View Citation

Hürzeler MB, Weng D. A single-incision technique to harvest subepithelial connective tissue grafts from the palate. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999 Jun;19(3):279-87. — View Citation

Isler SC, Eraydin N, Akkale H, Ozdemir B. Oral flurbiprofen spray for mucosal graft harvesting at the palatal area: A randomized placebo-controlled study. J Periodontol. 2018 Oct;89(10):1174-1183. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0381. Epub 2018 Aug 29. — View Citation

Lorenzana ER, Allen EP. The single-incision palatal harvest technique: a strategy for esthetics and patient comfort. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000 Jun;20(3):297-305. — View Citation

McLeod DE, Reyes E, Branch-Mays G. Treatment of multiple areas of gingival recession using a simple harvesting technique for autogenous connective tissue graft. J Periodontol. 2009 Oct;80(10):1680-7. doi: 10.1902/jop.2009.090187. — View Citation

Sculean A, Cosgarea R, Stähli A, Katsaros C, Arweiler NB, Miron RJ, Deppe H. Treatment of multiple adjacent maxillary Miller Class I, II, and III gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel, enamel matrix derivative, and subepithelial — View Citation

Tatakis DN, Chambrone L, Allen EP, Langer B, McGuire MK, Richardson CR, Zabalegui I, Zadeh HH. Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a consensus report from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2015 Feb;86(2 Suppl):S52-5. doi: 10.1902 — View Citation

Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Namazi SS, Chan HL, Brzezinski D, Danciu T, Wang HL. The influence of palatal harvesting technique on the donor site vascular injury: A split-mouth comparative cadaver study. J Periodontol. 2020 Jan;91(1):83-92. doi: 10.1002/JPER.1 — View Citation

Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Nguyen TVN, Tattan M, Ravidà A, Wang HL. Efficacy of tunnel technique in the treatment of localized and multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol. 2018 Sep;89(9):1075-1090. doi: 10.1002/JPER — View Citation

Zucchelli G, Mele M, Stefanini M, Mazzotti C, Marzadori M, Montebugnoli L, de Sanctis M. Patient morbidity and root coverage outcome after subepithelial connective tissue and de-epithelialized grafts: a comparative randomized-controlled clinical trial. J — View Citation

Zuhr O, Bäumer D, Hürzeler M. The addition of soft tissue replacement grafts in plastic periodontal and implant surgery: critical elements in design and execution. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Apr;41 Suppl 15:S123-42. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12185. Review. — View Citation

* Note: There are 23 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Root coverage outcomes	Mean root coverage of DGG versus SCTG with TUN	1-year postoperatively
Secondary	Root coverage outcomes	Complete root coverage of DGG versus SCTG with TUN	1-year postoperatively
Secondary	Root coverage outcomes	Recession depth	1-year postoperatively
Secondary	patient morbidity	postoperative pain	up to 28 days postoperatively
Secondary	patient morbidity	patients' discomfort	up to 28 days postoperatively
Secondary	histopathological features of the graft	graft cellularity	through study completion, an average of 1 year
Secondary	histopathological features of the graft	vascularization	through study completion, an average of 1 year