Postoperative Complications Following Gingival Grafts: A Prospective Cohort Study

Authors

  • Alexandra ROMAN Department of Periodontology, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
  • Andrada SOANCA Department of Periodontology, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
  • Radu CÂMPIAN Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
  • Cosmin CIOBAN Department of Periodontology, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
  • Robert BALAZSI Department of Psychology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Str. Republicii 37, 400015 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Keywords:

Gingival recession, Treatment, Outcome

Abstract

Aim: Treating gingival recessions (GRs) is a challenge for the practitioner who must take into consideration objective clinical factors, subjective symptoms and also factors related to the patient’s expectations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the postoperative complications associated with connective tissue graft (CTG) plus coronally advanced flap (CAF) and free gingival graft (FGG) used to cover GRs and to compare post-operative morbidities for the two groups of procedures. Material and Methods: A total of 17 patients diagnosed with GRs ≥2mm were treated using CTG plus CAF or FGG. Post-operative complications were evaluated with a questionnaire given to the patients at 14 days follow-up visit. The study used a 1 to 10 visual analogic scale (VAS) and the levels of outcomes were classified as “none to minimum” “moderate” and “very important/severe”. Results: A total of 21 procedures, 10 CTG plus CAG and 11 FGG were included in the analysis. No palatal bleeding and no severe pain or swelling were recorded. The patients experienced more pain in the grafted area than in the donor area, for both surgical techniques, with a mean value of 3.09 (1.3 sd) versus 2.27 (1.4 sd) for CTG plus CAF group and of 3.7 (2.21 sd) versus 2.9 (1.7 sd) for FGG group, respectively. CTG plus CAF generated significantly higher scores of tumefaction than FGG, the mean values being 2.45 (0.93 sd) and 4 (2.21 sd) (t value 2.12, p<0.05) respectively. Conclusion: The complications associated with the two periodontal surgical approaches seem manageable and clinically acceptable.

Author Biography

Alexandra ROMAN, Department of Periodontology, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Str. Victor Babes 8, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Department of Medical Informatics and Biostatistics

Assist. Prof., Ph.D., M.Sc., M.D.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

23.12.2011

How to Cite

1.
ROMAN A, SOANCA A, CÂMPIAN R, CIOBAN C, BALAZSI R. Postoperative Complications Following Gingival Grafts: A Prospective Cohort Study. Appl Med Inform [Internet]. 2011 Dec. 23 [cited 2024 Jul. 21];29(4):19-26. Available from: https://ami.info.umfcluj.ro/index.php/AMI/article/view/358

Issue

Section

Articles