» Articles » PMID: 32518910

Horizontal Continuous and Apical Stretching Sutures Does Not Reduce FGG Shrinkage: a Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Overview
Journal Eur Oral Res
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2020 Jun 11
PMID 32518910
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether horizontal continuous and apical stretching sutures could reduce FGG shrinkage.

Materials And Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial ten patients (20 sites, seven females and three males) ranging from 18 to 53 years (average 39 years) with insufficient keratinized and attached gingiva received FGG in two quadrants of mandible (splitmouth design). Horizontal continuous and apical stretching sutures were used in test sites in addition to common suturing techniques. Clinical parameters including probing depth (PD), the width of keratinized and attached gingiva (KG, AG), the horizontal and vertical dimension of the graft (HD, VD), and graft area (GA) were recorded at baseline and 1, 3, and six months after the operation.

Results: PD did not differ significantly for six months. The average change of other parameters in test and control sites respectively was as follows: KG increased 5.5 mm and 5.1 mm, AG increased 5.3 mm and 5.1 mm, HD shrinkage was 21.6% and 15.8%, VD shrinkage was 33.7% and 33.2%, GA shrinkage was 47.3% and 43.3%. There were no significant differences between test and control sites in clinical parameters six months after surgery.

Conclusion: Application of horizontal continuous and apical stretching sutures does not reduce FGG shrinkage.

Citing Articles

Comparison of conventional and modified sling suture techniques in free gingival graft operations-a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Shakiliyeva S, Sahin D, Gunpinar S, Gursel M BMC Oral Health. 2025; 25(1):279.

PMID: 39984903 PMC: 11846402. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-025-05456-x.


Double vertical interrupted suture for optimal adaptation and stabilization of free gingival graft around dental implants: a case report.

Moslemi N, Dolatabadi A, Mohseni Salehimonfared S, Goudarzimoghaddam F J Med Case Rep. 2024; 18(1):291.

PMID: 38918876 PMC: 11202392. DOI: 10.1186/s13256-024-04611-2.

References
1.
Menceva Z, Dimitrovski O, Popovska M, Spasovski S, Spirov V, Petrushevska G . Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018; 6(4):675-679. PMC: 5927503. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.127. View

2.
Dorfman H, Kennedy J, Bird W . Longitudinal evaluation of free autogenous gingival grafts. A four year report. J Periodontol. 1982; 53(6):349-52. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1982.53.6.349. View

3.
Miller Jr P . Regenerative and reconstructive periodontal plastic surgery. Mucogingival surgery. Dent Clin North Am. 1988; 32(2):287-306. View

4.
Hatipoglu H, Keceli H, Guncu G, Sengun D, Tozum T . Vertical and horizontal dimensional evaluation of free gingival grafts in the anterior mandible: a case report series. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11(2):107-13. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0084-x. View

5.
Rancitelli D, Poli P, Cicciu M, Lini F, Roncucci R, Cervino G . Soft-Tissue Enhancement Combined With Biologically Oriented Preparation Technique to Correct Volumetric Bone Defects: A Clinical Case Report. J Oral Implantol. 2017; 43(4):307-313. DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00067. View