Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jan;94(1):88-97.
doi: 10.1002/JPER.22-0172. Epub 2022 Aug 3.

Patient-reported outcomes of palatal donor site healing using four different wound dressing modalities following free epithelialized mucosal grafts: A four-arm randomized controlled clinical trial

Hussein S Basma  1 , Muhammad H A Saleh  2 , Ramzi V Abou-Arraj  1 , Matthew Imbrogno  3 , Andrea Ravida  2 , Hom-Lay Wang  2 , Peng Li  4 , Nicolaas Geurs  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Patient-reported outcomes of palatal donor site healing using four different wound dressing modalities following free epithelialized mucosal grafts: A four-arm randomized controlled clinical trial

Hussein S Basma et al. J Periodontol. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of four different commonly used wound dressings in improving patient reported outcomes (PROMS) after free epithelialized mucosal grafts (FEGs) harvesting.

Methods: Following 72 FEGs harvesting from 72 patients, patients were assigned into four groups.

Control: collagen plug + sutures (CPS); test: collagen plug with cyano-acrylate (CPC), platelet rich fibrin (PRF) + sutures, or palatal stent only (PS). Patients were observed for 14 days, with evaluation of pain level utilizing the visual analog scale, number of analgesics consumed, need for additional analgesics, amount of swelling, amount of bleeding, activity tolerance, and willingness for retreatment.

Results: Compared to the control group all test groups indicated significant lower pain perception (P < 0.0001), lower analgesic consumption (P < 0.0001), and higher willingness for retreatment (P < 0.0001), while no statistically significant differences among test groups were observed. There were no statistically significant differences in amount of day-by-day swelling, bleeding, and activity tolerance among four groups. Compared to other groups, the PS had the lowest overall pain scores (over the 14-day period). Palatal thickness, graft length, graft width, and graft thickness did not appear to affect patient morbidity (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: All interventions significantly decreased pain perception compared to a hemostatic collagen sponge alone over the palatal donor site after FEG surgery. In the first few days after surgery, the use of a palatal stent seemed to be associated with less overall pain, pain pills consumed, and higher willingness of doing the same procedure again.

Keywords: pain; palate; sutures; tissue adhesives; wound healing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors do not have any financial interests, either directly or indirectly, in the products or information listed in the paper.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
(A) Intra‐surgical photo of graft harvesting. (B) Uniform graft width was always attempted while considering the thickness of the palatal tissue
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Donor site management in the four groups. (A) PRF group: platelet‐rich fibrin membranes packed in the donor site and stabilized with sutures. (B) CPS group: Collagen sponge packed in the donor site and stabilized with resorbable sutures (control group). (C) PS group: Palatal stent delivered immediately after the surgery. No dressing was placed in the surgical site. (D) CPC group: Collagen sponge packed in the donor site and stabilized with cyanoacrylate. No sutures were used
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Statistical comparison of day‐to‐day pain, swelling, bleeding, activity tolerance, and need for more pain killer scores among the four groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kim DM, Neiva R. Periodontal soft tissue non‐root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP Regeneration Workshop. J Periodontol. 2015;86:S56‐72. - PubMed
    1. Maynard JG Jr, Ochsenbein C. Mucogingival problems, prevalence and therapy in children. J Periodontol. 1975;46:543‐552. - PubMed
    1. Lang NP, Loe H. The relationship between the width of keratinized gingiva and gingival health. J Periodontol. 1972;43:623‐627. - PubMed
    1. Cortellini P, Bissada NF. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018;89(1):S204‐S213. - PubMed
    1. Chambrone L, Tatakis DN. Periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures: a systematic review from the AAP regeneration workshop. J Periodontol. 2015;86:S8‐51. - PubMed

Publication types