Comparison of the Effectiveness of Gingival Unit Transfer and Free Gingival Graft in the Management of Localized Gingival Recession - A Systematic Review

Overview

Journal J Oral Biol Craniofac Res

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2022 Dec 29

PMID 36578558

Authors

Chetana

Sangamithra Sidharthan

Gopalakrishnan Dharmarajan

Sonal Kale

Soniya Dharmadhikari

Dhakshay Chordia

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Gingival Recession (GR) is defined as the displacement of the soft tissue margin apical to the cementoenamel junction which can lead to root exposure and hypersensitivity. Treatment of GR has become an important therapeutic issue due to the increasing number of cosmetic requests from patients. Several techniques exist for the management of GR that include Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft (SECTG), Pedicle Graft (lateral and coronal), and Free Gingival Graft (FGG) and more. FGG is a non-submerged grafting procedure carried out for the management of recession defects. However, FGG has limitations like aesthetic mismatch and bulky appearance. A relatively newer modification of FGG was introduced by Allen in 2004 wherein a palatal graft including the marginal gingiva and interdental tissue was used as donor tissue for recession coverage. This review aims to study and compare the use of Gingival Unit Graft/Transfer (GUG/GUT) (palatal graft including the marginal gingiva and papillae) and FGG in the management of GR.

Materials And Methods: Randomized Clinical Trials, Non-Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials for the treatment of Miller Class I,II, and III of GRs by GUG with FGG were identified. Data sources included electronic databases and hand-searched journals. The primary outcome variables were complete root coverage, mean root coverage, vertical recession depth. The secondary outcome variables were keratinized tissue width gain, clinical attachment level and probing depth.

Results: Three Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated in this systematic review. Both techniques showed significant improvement in clinical parameters. GUG procedure resulted in a greater percentage of sites achieving complete root coverage and vertical recession depth reduction when compared to FGG group in all the studies. Two studies reported significantly greater mean root coverage in GUG group compared to FGG group. GUG procedure revealed statistically significant greater gain in keratinized tissue width when compared to FGG group in all the studies.

Conclusion: Because of the limited number of selected studies, no conclusive statement could be made regarding the advantage of the GUG technique over FGG. However, the percentage of sites with complete root coverage obtained in the GUG technique is higher than FGG. More RCTs with aesthetic and patient satisfaction-related parameters are needed to provide definite evidence.

Citing Articles

Modifications in the Free Gingival Graft Technique: A Systematic Review.

Fatani B, Alshalawi H, Fatani A, Almuqrin R, Aburaisi M, Awartani F Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58932.

PMID: 38659709 PMC: 11042501. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58932.

References

Kayaalti-Yuksek S, Yaprak E . The comparison of the efficacy of gingival unit graft with connective tissue graft in recession defect coverage: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 26(3):2761-2770. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04252-5. View

Tatakis D, Chambrone L, Allen E, Langer B, McGuire M, Richardson C . Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a consensus report from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2014; 86(2 Suppl):S52-5. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2015.140376. View

Armitage G . Development of a classification system for periodontal diseases and conditions. Northwest Dent. 2001; 79(6):31-5. View

Sterne J, Savovic J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. View

AlSarhan M, Al Jasser R, Tarish M, AlHuzaimi A, Alzoman H . Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019; 5(5):566-579. PMC: 6820582. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.210. View

Sullivan H, ATKINS J . Free autogenous gingival grafts. I. Principles of successful grafting. Periodontics. 1968; 6(3):121-9. View

Sriwil M, Fakher M, Hasan K, Kasem T, Shwaiki T, Wassouf G . Comparison of Free Gingival Graft and Gingival Unit Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020; 40(3):e103-e110. DOI: 10.11607/prd.4180. View

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(4):264-9, W64. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. View

Borghetti A, Gardella J . Thick gingival autograft for the coverage of gingival recession: a clinical evaluation. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1990; 10(3):216-29. View

10.

Tonetti M, Jepsen S . Clinical efficacy of periodontal plastic surgery procedures: consensus report of Group 2 of the 10th European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41 Suppl 15:S36-43. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12219. View

11.

Camargo P, Melnick P, Kenney E . The use of free gingival grafts for aesthetic purposes. Periodontol 2000. 2001; 27:72-96. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0757.2001.027001072.x. View

12.

Schardt C, Adams M, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P . Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007; 7:16. PMC: 1904193. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-7-16. View

13.

Miller Jr P . A classification of marginal tissue recession. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1985; 5(2):8-13. View

14.

Sculean A, Gruber R, Bosshardt D . Soft tissue wound healing around teeth and dental implants. J Clin Periodontol. 2014; 41 Suppl 15:S6-22. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12206. View

15.

Nobuto T, Imai H, Yamaoka A . Microvascularization of the free gingival autograft. J Periodontol. 1988; 59(10):639-46. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1988.59.10.639. View

16.

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

17.

Cairo F, Nieri M, Cincinelli S, Mervelt J, Pagliaro U . The interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol. 2011; 38(7):661-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01732.x. View

18.

Allen A . Use of the gingival unit transfer in soft tissue grafting: report of three cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004; 24(2):165-75. View

19.

Cortellini P, Bissada N . Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: Narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 Suppl 1:S204-S213. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.16-0671. View

20.

Kuru B, Yildirim S . Treatment of localized gingival recessions using gingival unit grafts: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol. 2012; 84(1):41-50. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.110685. View