Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 14, 2026

07:51
A Novel Approach to Monitoring Graft Neovascularization in the Human Gingiva
Published on: January 12, 2019
De-epithelialized gingival unit graft for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage: a randomized controlled
Zeki Kacar1, Ezgi Gurbuz2, Mehmet Meric Ersoz1
1Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Kutahya Health Sciences University, Kutahya, Turkey.
Clinical Oral Investigations
|July 12, 2026
Summary
The de-epithelialized gingival unit graft (DUG) showed superior results in root coverage and gingival thickness compared to the de-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) for treating gingival recession defects. DUG offers a promising alternative for enhancing soft tissue thickness.
Area of Science:
- Periodontology
- Regenerative Dentistry
- Oral Surgery
Background:
- Gingival recession defects require effective treatment for root coverage and aesthetic improvement.
- Gingival phenotype modification is crucial for long-term periodontal health.
- Coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedures are commonly used, often combined with grafts.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of de-epithelialized gingival unit graft (DUG) versus de-epithelialized gingival graft (DGG) in conjunction with CAF for treating single gingival recession defects.
- To evaluate outcomes related to gingival thickness, root coverage, and patient-reported measures.
Main Methods:
- A randomized controlled trial involving 15 patients with bilateral RT1 gingival recession defects.
- Surgical sites were randomly assigned to receive either DUG or DGG with CAF.
- Clinical, linear, and volumetric digital measurements, including gingival thickness and root coverage, were assessed at 6 months.
Main Results:
- The DUG group demonstrated significantly greater increases in gingival thickness (2.39 mm vs. 1.66 mm) and digital linear dimensions (1.66 mm vs. 1.13 mm) compared to the DGG group (p<0.01).
- Mean root coverage was higher in the DUG group (95%) than the DGG group (75%), although not statistically significant.
- Graft thickness was significantly greater in the DUG group (p=0.027). Postoperative pain and bleeding showed no significant differences between groups.
Conclusions:
- DUG appears to provide superior outcomes for gingival phenotype modification and root coverage compared to DGG in treating gingival recession defects.
- The baseline difference in graft thickness may be a confounding factor, requiring cautious interpretation.
- DUG presents a viable alternative for cases with limited recipient soft tissue thickness.
