Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2018, vol. 55, nr 2, April-June, p. 153–159

doi: 10.17219/dmp/91406

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Patient morbidity at the palatal donor site depending on gingival graft dimension

Ryzyko powikłań miejsca dawczego na podniebieniu w zależności od długości i grubości przeszczepu dziąsłowego

Beata Wyrębek1,A,B,D,E,F, Bartłomiej Górski1,A,B,C,D,E,F, Renata Górska1,A,C,E,F

1 Department of Periodontology and Oral Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland


Background. Autogenous gingival grafts are considered the gold standard procedure with proven clinical success when it comes to gingival augmentation. Different graft harvesting procedures have been described in the literature. Understanding which factors might affect the level of discomfort (morbidity) that patients are likely to experience and oral health-related quality of life outcomes in general seems to be crucial.
Objectives. An evaluation of patients’ morbidity depending on the free gingival graft (FGG) dimension.
Material and Methods. Sixty patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the length of their graft (group L1: ≤10 mm, group L2: 10–20 mm, group L3: ≥20 mm) and into 2 groups depending on the thickness of the graft (group T1: ≤2 mm, group T2: >2 mm). Discomfort at the donor site was evaluated 1 week postoperatively, using a visual analog scale (VAS).
Results. With the length of the FGG, the mean VAS scores for pain, bleeding, eating and speaking disorders, stress and interference with social life increased. Analgesic consumption increased with the length of the graft. The thicker the grafts, the less discomfort and pain, and more problems with speaking, stress, daily and work routines occurred; however, without statistical significance.
Conclusion. No differences were demonstrated in the post-operative patients’ morbidity between the examined groups; however, pain gradually increased with the FGG length and width.

Key words

visual analog scale, free gingival graft, patient comfort

Słowa kluczowe

wizualna skala analogowa, wolny przeszczep dziąsłowy, komfort pacjenta

References (27)

  1. Kim DM, Neiva R. Periodontal soft tissue non-root coverage procedures: A systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2015;86(Suppl 2):56–72.
  2. Zucchelli G, Mele M, Stefanini M, et al. Patient morbidity and root coverage outcome after subepithelial connective tissue and deepithelialized grafts: A comparative randomized-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37:728–738.
  3. Sullivan HC, Atkins JH. Free autogenous gingival grafts. I. Principles of successful grafting. Periodont. 1968;6:121–129.
  4. Hürzeler MB, Weng D. A single-incision technique to harvest subepithelial connective tissue grafts from the palate. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999;19:279–287.
  5. Lorenzana ER, Allen EP. The single-incision palatal harvest technique: A strategy for esthetics and patient comfort. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2000;20:297–305.
  6. Zucchelli G, Mounssif I. Periodontal plastic surgery. Periodontol 2000. 2015;68:333–368.
  7. 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;27:133–139.
  8. Chambrone L, Tatakis DN. Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: A systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2015;86(Suppl 2):8–51.
  9. Haghighati F, Mousavi M, Moslemi N, Kebria MM, Golestan B. A comparative study of two root-coverage techniques with regard to interdental papilla dimension as a prognostic factor. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2009;29:179–189.
  10. Kerner S, Sarfati A, Katsahian S, et al. Qualitative cosmetic evaluation after root-coverage procedures. J Periodontol. 2009;80:41–47.
  11. Keceli HG, Aylikci BU, Koseoglu S, Dolgun A. Evaluation of palatal donor site haemostasis and wound healing after free gingival graft surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42:582–589.
  12. Inglehart MR. Enhancing periodontal health through regenerative approaches: A commentary on the need for patient-reported outcomes. J Periodontol. 2015;86 (Suppl 2):4–7.
  13. O’Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE. The plaque control record. J Periodontol. 1972;43:38. doi: 10.1902/jop.1972.43.1.38
  14. Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1975;25:229–235.
  15. Miller PD Jr. A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Peridontics Restorative Dent. 1985;5:8–13.
  16. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18:1007–1019.
  17. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2016. Accessed January 15, 2018.
  18. Zucchelli G, De Sanctis M. Modified two-stage procedures for the treatment of gingival recession. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2013;8:24–42.
  19. Del Pizzo M, Modica F, Bethaz N, Priotto P, Romagnoli R. The connective tissue graft: A comparative clinical evaluation of wound healing at the palatal donor site. A preliminary study. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29:848–854.
  20. Farnoush A. Techniques for the protection and coverage of the donor sites in free soft tissue grafts. J Periodontol. 1978;49:403–405.
  21. Wessel JR, Tatakis DN. Patient outcomes following subepithelial connective tissue graft and free gingival graft procedures. J Periodontol. 2008;79:425–430.
  22. Zucchelli G, Mounssif I, Mazzotti C, et al. Does the dimension of the graft influence patient morbidity and root coverage outcomes? A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:708–716.
  23. Eltas A, Eltas SD, Uslu MO, Ersöz M. Evaluation of patient discomfort at the palatal donor site following free gingival graft procedures: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol Implant Dent. 2014;6:47–53.
  24. Yıldırım S, Özener HÖ, Doğan B, Kuru B. Effect of topically-applied hyaluronic-acid on pain and palatal epithelial wound healing: An examiner-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol. 2017;88:1–14.
  25. Ozcan M, Ucak O, Alkaya B, Keceli S, Seydaoglu G, Haytac MC. Effects of platelet-rich fibrin on palatal wound healing after free gingival graft harvesting: A comparative randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2017;37:270–278.
  26. Pandit N, Khasa M, Gugnani S, Malik R, Bali D. Comparison of two techniques of harvesting connective tissue and its effects on healing pattern at palate and recession coverage at recipient site. Contemp Clin Dent. 2016;7:3–10.
  27. Rossi R, Pilloni A, Morales RS. Qualitative assessment of connective tissue graft with epithelial component. A microsurgical periodontal plastic surgical technique for soft tissue esthetics. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2009;4:118–128.