We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
www.quintessence-publishing.com
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 40 (2020), No. 6     11. Nov. 2020
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 40 (2020), No. 6  (11.11.2020)

Page 845-852, doi:10.11607/prd.4912, PubMed:33151190


Labial Strip Gingival Graft for the Reconstruction of Severely Distorted Mucogingival Defects: A Prospective Case Series
Urban, Istvan A. / Tavelli, Lorenzo / Barootchi, Shayan / Wang, Hom-Lay / Barath, Zoltan
Several techniques involving the harvesting of a soft tissue graft from the palate have been proposed for regenerating keratinized mucosa (KM) at implant sites. However, patient morbidity and poor esthetic outcomes are considered the main drawbacks of these approaches. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe and evaluate a new technique for harvesting keratinized tissue from the adjacent labial site (labial gingival graft [LGG]), in combination with a xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) or a connective tissue graft (CTG). Eighteen patients were enrolled and participated in this case series. The primary outcomes were KM gain after 12 months and patient-reported satisfaction, esthetics, and morbidity using a visual analog scale (VAS). All treated sites healed uneventfully, showing a mean KM gain of 6.8 ± 2 mm. The average VAS score for patient satisfaction and the self-reported esthetic outcomes were 95.6 ± 6.9 and 93.4 ± 9.2, respectively, and the score for morbidity was 22.8 ± 22.3. However, the VAS score for morbidity dropped to 8.7 ± 8.4 when CTG-treated subjects were excluded. Higher esthetic results were observed when XCM was used instead of CTG and when LGG was harvested from the anterior region of the implant site (P < .05 for both comparisons). LGG with XCM or CTG is a viable technique for regenerating KM at implant sites with high patient satisfaction and esthetics and low morbidity outcomes.
fulltext (no access granted) Endnote-Export