Non-Submerged De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft Versus Conventional Free Gingival Graft

October University for Modern Sciences and Arts30 enrolled

Overview

The goal of this (study type: RCT) is to learn if the use of the non-submerged de-epithelized FGG will result in better esthetic outcomes in adults. The main questions that it aims to answer are: * Does this procedure increase the width of keratinized tissue? * Does this procedure increase the depth of the vestibule? Researchers will compare this technique with the gold standard using the FGG to evaluate which technique provides better esthetics.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Deficient Keratinized Mucosa

Interventions

Non-Submerged De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * Adult patients: 18-60. * Insufficient width of keratinized mucosa, that is less than 2 mm. * Lower anterior areas. * Good oral hygiene. Exclusion Criteria: * Systemic conditions that prevent the patient from undergoing minor oral surgical procedures or hinder the healing process. * Patient undertaking radiotherapy or chemotherapy. * Smokers. * Pregnant females

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Esthetic Evaluation of Non-Submerged De-Epithelialized Free Gingival Graft (Ns-dFGG) Versus Conventional Free Gingival Graft (cFGG) for the Augmentation of The Keratinized Mucosa

The professional esthetic evaluation will be done using the root coverage esthetic score (RES) by(Cairo et al.,2009). Standardized Clinical photographs will be taken at 6 months, where they will evaluate: Color matching: Score 0, \& Score 1: Regarding the color matching to the normal gingiva Soft tissue texture: Score 0, \& Score 1: If there is scar formation or keloid appearance Muco-gingival junction (MGJ) alignment: Score 0, \& Score 1:If the MGJ is or isn't aligned that of the adjacent teeth

Time frame: 6 months