Clinical Evaluation of Free Autogenous Gingival Grafts Placed on Alveolar Bone: Part I. Clinical Predictability

Abstract

1. Thirty free autogenous gingival grafts were placed on bone and 30 were placed on a periosteal bed. The distribution into the groups was random. All 60 grafts survived, showing that both procedures were predictable. 2. Over one-half (17 of 30) of those on periosteum demonstrated mobility by 6 months postoperatively. No mobility was observed in the group placed directly on bone. 3. Osseous placed grafts demonstrated less swelling and better hemostasis than did the periosteally placed grafts. 4. A healing lag was observed in the grafts placed on bone which lasted only for the first two postoperative visits, approximately 2 weeks. 5. No infections or sequestrations were noted in any case.

Quantitative Assessment of Free Gingival Grafts with and without Periosteum and Osseous Perforation

“…Although Dordick et al 9 reported a difference in graft mobility 6 months postoperatively, the statistical analysis in the present experiment revealed no significant difference in the degree of attachment between grafts placed on periosteum and grafts placed on bared bone. It is noteworthy to mention that there is a difference in the measurement techniques between the two studies.…”

“…9 "Weeping of the bone through its haversian canals into the fibrin clot interface and filling into the graft itself" was hypothesized by Dordick et al as an explanation of graft survival. Future studies of graft vascularization placed on bared bone will be of great interest.…”

Long‐term outcomes of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants on soft and hard tissue stability: a systematic review

“…Richter et al (1973) Not study on soft tissue augmentation around dental implants 3. Dordick et al (1976) Follow-up duration <12 months 4. Yukna et al (1977) Not study on soft tissue augmentation around dental implants 5.…”

Focus on Epithelialized Palatal Grafts. Part 2: Implant Site Development

“…However, these procedures will not remove unfavorable superficial tissue. Implant site development with EPG favorably alters vestibular depth, if needed, and establishes a zone of firmly‐attached keratinizing mucosa bordering the implant.…”