A conservative approach for keratinized tissue augmentation: Report of two cases

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundFree gingival graft harvested from the palate is considered the most predictable method to augment the keratinized tissue (KT). However, the anatomical limitations of the palate, and associated patient morbidity and complications restrict clinicians from performing these procedures in adolescents. Color mismatch with the native tissues resulting in poor esthetic appearance is another concern. To overcome these limitations, this article reports a surgical approach known as labial gingival graft (LGG) as an alternative to palatal graft.MethodsTwo adolescent patients presenting with absence of attached gingiva and shallow gingival recession in the mandibular incisor region were treated with LGG harvested from the labial KT of teeth adjacent to those requiring KT augmentation.ResultsThe procedure was well tolerated by the patients. At the final follow‐up (3.5‐ and 2 years from baseline), a significant gain in KT with complete root coverage was achieved in both patients. Both professional and patient‐centered esthetic evaluations revealed excellent color match making the grafted area imperceptible from the adjacent mucosa.ConclusionsThe proposed technique was found to be simple and predictable, and was associated with minimal morbidity and no complications. Clinicians may consider performing LGG procedure when sufficient KT can be harvested from adjacent donor site. The selection of such techniques is of particular relevance in children who are vulnerable to complications associated with more invasive procedures.Key pointsWhy are these cases new information? To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first to present the use of labial gingival graft harvested from adjacent keratinized mucosa in adolescent patients. What are the keys to successful management of these cases? Proper case selection in terms of sufficient amount of keratinized tissue to harvest as labial gingival graft from adjacent teeth. Use of smaller instruments, small‐sized needles, and sutures under magnification to minimize trauma to the tissues /graft. Preparation of an immobile periosteal bed and suturing protocol that minimizes the dead space and ensures revascularization of graft. What are the primary limitations to success in these cases? A prerequisite of the presence of thick gingiva and sufficient dimensions of KT around the adjacent teeth further limits its applicability in all cases.