Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 2682  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 483-488

Comparative evaluation of free gingival graft and AlloDerm® in enhancing the width of attached gingival: A clinical study


1 Department of Periodontics, Jodhpur Dental College General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Periodontics, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Chitra Agarwal
Shree Balaji Dental Hospital, Near Electricity Office, Fort Road, Nagori Gate Circle, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.169838

Rights and Permissions

Background: The presence of an adequate width of keratinized tissue is important to maintain a healthy dentogingival junction. In case of inadequate width of attached gingiva, the gingival augmentation procedure has been performed classically using the patient's own masticatory mucosa and more recently, using an acellular dermal allograft as the donor material. Aims: The aim of the clinical study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of free gingival graft (FGG) and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) allograft in the ability to increase the zone of attached gingiva. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients with 30 sites showing the inadequate width of attached gingiva (≤1 mm) were enrolled for the split-mouth study. The width of keratinized gingiva and other clinical parameters were recorded at baseline and 12th month postoperatively. Statistical Analysis: The difference in clinical parameters within the group was assessed by Wilcoxon signed rank test. However, Mann–Whitney U-test was used to analyze the differences between test and control groups. Results: The width of attached gingiva increased significantly (P < 0.01) following both the treatments but comparatively lesser gain with ADM allograft (2.13 mm vs. 4.8 mm). ADM site had significantly more shrinkage (76.6%) than FGG site (49.7%). Though FGG was found to be more effective, clinicians can prefer ADM allograft because of its certain advantages over the FGG. Conclusion: ADM allograft has resulted in sufficient increase in width of attached gingiva although lesser than FGG. Considering the disadvantages of FGG, it can be concluded that ADM allograft can be used as an alternative to FGG in increasing width of attached gingival in certain clinical situations.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3576    
    Printed73    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded353    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal