Cargando…

Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation

INTRODUCTION: The correction of the gingival recession is of esthetical and functional significance, but the tissue regeneration can only be confirmed by a histological examination. AIM: This study aims to make a comparison between the free gingival graft and the autograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Menceva, Zaklina, Dimitrovski, Oliver, Popovska, Mirjana, Spasovski, Spiro, Spirov, Vancho, Petrushevska, Gordana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Republic of Macedonia 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29731940
http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.127
_version_ 1783319098714750976
author Menceva, Zaklina
Dimitrovski, Oliver
Popovska, Mirjana
Spasovski, Spiro
Spirov, Vancho
Petrushevska, Gordana
author_facet Menceva, Zaklina
Dimitrovski, Oliver
Popovska, Mirjana
Spasovski, Spiro
Spirov, Vancho
Petrushevska, Gordana
author_sort Menceva, Zaklina
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The correction of the gingival recession is of esthetical and functional significance, but the tissue regeneration can only be confirmed by a histological examination. AIM: This study aims to make a comparison between the free gingival graft and the autograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 24 patients with single and multiple gingival recessions. Twelve patients were treated with a free gingival graft and the other twelve with a micrograft. Six months after the surgical procedure, a micro-punch biopsy of the transplantation area was performed. The tissue was histologically evaluated, graded in 4 categories: immature, mature, fragmented and edematous collagen tissue. The elastic fibres were also examined and graded in three categories: with a normal structure, fragmented rare and fragmented multiplied. RESULTS: Regarding the type of collagen tissue that was present, there was a significant difference between the two groups of patients, with a larger number of patients treated with a micrograft showing a presence of mature tissue, compared to the patients treated with a free gingival graft. A larger number of patients in both of the groups displayed elastic fibres with a rare fragmented structure; 33.3% of the patients showed a normal structure; 50% demonstrated a normal structure. CONCLUSION: The patients treated with a free gingival graft showed a larger presence of fragmented collagen tissue and fragmented elastic fibres, whereas a mature tissue was predominantly present in the surgical area where a Geistlich Mucograft was placed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5927503
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Republic of Macedonia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59275032018-05-04 Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation Menceva, Zaklina Dimitrovski, Oliver Popovska, Mirjana Spasovski, Spiro Spirov, Vancho Petrushevska, Gordana Open Access Maced J Med Sci Dental Science INTRODUCTION: The correction of the gingival recession is of esthetical and functional significance, but the tissue regeneration can only be confirmed by a histological examination. AIM: This study aims to make a comparison between the free gingival graft and the autograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study included 24 patients with single and multiple gingival recessions. Twelve patients were treated with a free gingival graft and the other twelve with a micrograft. Six months after the surgical procedure, a micro-punch biopsy of the transplantation area was performed. The tissue was histologically evaluated, graded in 4 categories: immature, mature, fragmented and edematous collagen tissue. The elastic fibres were also examined and graded in three categories: with a normal structure, fragmented rare and fragmented multiplied. RESULTS: Regarding the type of collagen tissue that was present, there was a significant difference between the two groups of patients, with a larger number of patients treated with a micrograft showing a presence of mature tissue, compared to the patients treated with a free gingival graft. A larger number of patients in both of the groups displayed elastic fibres with a rare fragmented structure; 33.3% of the patients showed a normal structure; 50% demonstrated a normal structure. CONCLUSION: The patients treated with a free gingival graft showed a larger presence of fragmented collagen tissue and fragmented elastic fibres, whereas a mature tissue was predominantly present in the surgical area where a Geistlich Mucograft was placed. Republic of Macedonia 2018-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5927503/ /pubmed/29731940 http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.127 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Zaklina Menceva, Oliver Dimitrovski, Mirjana Popovska, Spiro Spasovski, Vancho Spirov, Gordana Petrushevska. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY-NC/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
spellingShingle Dental Science
Menceva, Zaklina
Dimitrovski, Oliver
Popovska, Mirjana
Spasovski, Spiro
Spirov, Vancho
Petrushevska, Gordana
Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title_full Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title_fullStr Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title_short Free Gingival Graft versus Mucograft: Histological Evaluation
title_sort free gingival graft versus mucograft: histological evaluation
topic Dental Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29731940
http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.127
work_keys_str_mv AT mencevazaklina freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation
AT dimitrovskioliver freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation
AT popovskamirjana freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation
AT spasovskispiro freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation
AT spirovvancho freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation
AT petrushevskagordana freegingivalgraftversusmucografthistologicalevaluation