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
Review
. 2025 Jun 21.
doi: 10.1111/jerd.13504. Online ahead of print.

Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Versus Sutures for Free Gingival Graft Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Axelle Negre  1 , Kadiatou Sy  2 , Hamoun Sabri  3 , Khushboo Kalani  3 , Hom-Lay Wang  3 , Kevimy Agossa  3   4
Affiliations
Review

Cyanoacrylate Adhesive Versus Sutures for Free Gingival Graft Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Axelle Negre et al. J Esthet Restor Dent. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of cyanoacrylate adhesive (GLU) and sutures (SUT) for the fixation of free gingival grafts (FGG) around natural teeth.

Materials and methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted up to March 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLU and SUT as fixation methods for FGG were included in a meta-analysis. Potential moderators, including publication year, follow-up duration, sample size, baseline clinical parameters, and study-level covariates, were investigated.

Results: Ten RCTs were included. No significant differences were observed between GLU and SUT for recession reduction (mean difference [MD] = 0.49 mm; 95% CI: -0.53 to 1.50; p = 0.08), keratinized tissue (KT) height gain (MD = 0.01 mm; 95% CI: -1.58 to 1.59; p = 0.99), or graft shrinkage (MD = 0.26; 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.66; p = 0.15). A statistically significant but clinically negligible difference favored GLU for probing depth reduction (MD = 0.063 mm; 95% CI: 0.007 to 0.118; p = 0.044). Meta-regression identified smoking, tissue thickness, graft dimension, and follow-up duration as moderators of treatment outcomes.

Conclusion: No significant differences were observed between GLU and SUT in clinical outcomes following FGG procedures around natural teeth.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. H. C. Sullivan and J. H. Atkins, “Free Autogenous Gingival Grafts. I. Principles of Successful Grafting,” Periodontics 6, no. 3 (1968): 121–129.
    1. G. M. Horning, A. Vernino, H. J. Towle, 3rd, and L. Baccaglini, “Gingival Grafting in Periodontal Practice: Results of 103 Consecutive Surgeries in 82 Patients,” International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry 28, no. 4 (2008): 327–335.
    1. E. T. Scheyer, M. Sanz, S. Dibart, et al., “Periodontal Soft Tissue Non‐Root Coverage Procedures: A Consensus Report From the AAP Regeneration Workshop,” Journal of Periodontology 86, no. 2 (2015): 73–76.
    1. D. M. Kim and R. Neiva, “Periodontal Soft Tissue Non‐Root Coverage Procedures: A Systematic Review From the AAP Regeneration Workshop,” Journal of Periodontology 86, no. S2 (2015): 56–72.
    1. S. S. Jensen, T. Aghaloo, R. E. Jung, et al., “Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The Role of Bone Dimensions and Soft Tissue Augmentation Procedures on the Stability of Clinical, Radiographic, and Patient‐Reported Outcomes of Implant Treatment,” Clinical Oral Implants Research 34 (2023): 43–49.

LinkOut - more resources