Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025
07:51
A Novel Approach to Monitoring Graft Neovascularization in the Human Gingiva
Published on: January 12, 2019
6.7K
Gingival unit grafts for localized gingival recession: A split mouth randomized controlled trial
Neelima Katti1, Anurag Satpathy2, Devapratim Mohanty1
1Assistant Professor (Periodontics), SCB Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
Medical Journal, Armed Forces India
|July 29, 2024
Summary
Gingival unit graft (GUG) provided superior root coverage and aesthetic outcomes compared to epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) in treating localized gingival recession. GUG offers a simple modification for enhanced clinical results in periodontal plastic surgery.
Area of Science:
- Periodontology
- Periodontal Plastic Surgery
- Regenerative Dentistry
Background:
- Graft-recipient site interaction is crucial for periodontal plastic surgery success.
- Localized gingival recession defects (Recession Type 1) require effective root coverage techniques.
- Comparing epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) and gingival unit graft (GUG) is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of EPG versus GUG for root coverage in RT1 recession defects.
- To evaluate the efficacy of GUG as a modification of EPG for improved results.
- To assess patient satisfaction with both surgical techniques.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled, split-mouth, double-blinded clinical trial was conducted.
- Twenty participants with forty bilateral RT1 recession defects were treated with either EPG or GUG.
- Clinical parameters including recession depth, width, probing depth, clinical attachment level, keratinized tissue width, and interdental papilla width were measured at baseline and six months.
Main Results:
- Gingival unit graft (GUG) achieved significantly greater mean root coverage (MRC) (80.68%) compared to epithelialized palatal graft (EPG) (71.05%) (p=0.01).
- Both treatment satisfaction (p=0.009) and aesthetic satisfaction (p<0.001) were significantly higher with GUG.
- Baseline recession depth and interdental papilla width predicted MRC in GUG sites (R²=0.56).
Conclusions:
- Gingival unit graft (GUG) demonstrates superior mean root coverage, aesthetic outcomes, and increased keratinized tissue width compared to epithelialized palatal graft (EPG).
- GUG represents a simple yet effective modification of EPG, enhancing both clinical and aesthetic results in root coverage procedures.
- The findings support GUG as a preferred technique for achieving dual objectives of root coverage and aesthetic improvement in localized gingival recession.
