Patient experience of autogenous soft tissue grafting has an implication for future treatment: A 10‐ to 15‐year cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes have received a great deal of interest in periodontal plastic procedures. However, their evaluation has mainly been shortterm. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of soft tissue grafting procedures conducted over a decade ago on the willingness of a patients to undergo the surgery again. Methods: Subjects that received an autogenous soft tissue graft over 10 years ago were screened and invited for a survey. Their response was only analyzed if they were able to correctly identify the sites of the surgical procedures. Dichotomous questions and visual analogue scales (VASs) were used to assess self-reported pain, willingness to retreat and satisfaction. Results: Fifty-two patients were included in the analyses. Higher pain was reported for mandibular sites, and treated areas including ≥ 3 teeth (P < 0.01). Willingness to retreatment was 84.6% and it was negatively associated with selfreported pain measures, the arch location (mandible), and number of treated sites (≥3 teeth) (P < 0.01). Mean satisfaction rate was 86.9 ± 13.65 (VAS) and showed a positive correlation with willingness to retreat (P < 0.01). Having a complete root coverage at the recall visit was also significantly associated with higher patient satisfaction scores (P < 0.01). Conclusions:Patient experience of previous autogenous soft tissue grafting has an influence on their decision to undergo future treatment. Willingness to retreat was negatively affected by mandibular sites, larger treated areas and the perceived pain, while presenting with complete root coverage was significantly associated with patient satisfaction.

Soft tissue grafting with the tunnel technique in the mandibular anterior: Myths and realities

“…The improvement for the patient is additionally improved by using an effective allograft alternative to the connective tissue harvested from the palate. A recent study surveyed patients who had autogenous grafts 10 years previously 22 . They were asked if they would be willing to undergo another needed grafting procedure.…”

“…A recent study surveyed patients who had autogenous grafts 10 years previously. 22 They were asked if they would be willing to undergo another needed grafting procedure. Patient willingness was negatively impacted by grafting in the mandibular arch, treating multiple teeth and perceived pain.…”

Effect of free gingival graft before implant placement on peri-implant health and soft tissue changes: a randomized controlled trial

“…FGG is commonly used in the posterior region because the color and texture of free gingival graft did not match well with the surrounding mucosa which limits its application in the anterior region [ 45 ]. Third, researchers give special attention to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which evaluate patient satisfaction on procedures [ 46 , 47 ]. Whereas, PROMs after FGG were not analyzed in this study because of limited sample size.…”

On the value of the 2017 classification of phenotype and gingival recessions

“…On one end of the spectrum, the absence of recession in thick phenotypes requires no intervention (Fig. 2, Case A); on the other hand, prophylactic treatment may be recommended for thin phenotypes planned for orthodontic, restorative, or implant work, 4 or if longitudinal observation reveals a high risk of recession 34,35 (Fig. 3, Case B).…”