The aim of the present investigation was to clinically determine the thickness of masticatory mucosa in the hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. In 31 periodontally healthy, fully dentate subjects the masticatory mucosa thickness was assessed by bone sounding with a periodontal probe. Eighteen standard measurement points were defined in the hard palate, located on 3 lines which ran at different distances parallel to the gingival margin. Six positions were designated on each of these 3 lines between the level of the canine and the second molar. In the tuberosity, 6 standard measurement points were defined, located on 2 lines running parallel to the gingival margin at 2 different distances from the distal aspect of the second molar. Three positions were designated on each line. The hard palate and tuberosity were anesthetized by a spray followed by carticain injection with an epinephrine vasoconstrictor of 1:100,000. Data were analyzed to determine differences in gender, between different positions, and between lines, using an analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test. The mucosa of the tuberosity was significantly thicker than in the hard palate region. Gender did not influence the thickness of masticatory mucosa, either in the hard palate or the tuberosity with the exception of the most distant line in the palate. The mucosa was thickest at the mid-distal position of the tuberosity. In the hard palate, mucosa thickness increased with greater distances from the marginal gingiva. The mucosa over the palatal root of the maxillary first molar was significantly thinner than at all other positions in the hard palate. This represents an anatomical barrier in graft harvesting. It was concluded that two different regions may be defined for soft tissue graft harvesting from an anatomic point of view: 1) In the canine-premolar region rather wide and shallow grafts may be harvested. This region extends distally to the first palatal molar root with a significantly thinner mucosa. 2) The tuberosity revealed a significantly more soft tissue thickness in comparison to the hard palate. This region allows the harvesting of deeper grafts, but graft size is limited by the width of keratinized tissue.

Background: Management of gingival recession defects, a common periodontal condition, using root coverage procedures is an important aspect of periodontal regenerative therapy. The goal of the periodontal soft tissue root coverage procedures group was to develop a consensus report based on the accompanying systematic review of root coverage procedures, including priorities for future research and identification of the best evidence available to manage different clinical scenarios. Methods: The group reviewed and discussed the accompanying systematic review, which covered treatment of single‐tooth recession defects, multiple‐tooth recession defects, and additional focused questions on relevant clinical topics. The consensus group members submitted additional material for consideration by the group in advance and at the time of the meeting. The group also identified priorities for future research. Results: All reviewed root coverage procedures provide significant reduction in recession depth, especially for Miller Class I and II recession defects. Subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) procedures provide the best root coverage outcomes. Acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in conjunction with a coronally advanced flap (CAF) can serve as alternatives to autogenous donor tissue. Additional research is needed to do the following: 1) assess the treatment outcomes for multiple‐tooth recession defects, oral sites other than maxillary canine and premolar teeth, and Miller Class III and IV defects; 2) assess the role of patient‐ and site‐specific factors on procedure outcomes; and 3) obtain evidence on patient‐reported outcomes. Conclusions: Predictable root coverage is possible for single‐tooth and multiple‐tooth recession defects, with SCTG procedures providing the best root coverage outcomes. Alternatives to SCTG are supported by evidence of varying strength. Additional research is needed on treatment outcomes for specific oral sites. Clinical Recommendation: For Miller Class I and II single‐tooth recession defects, SCTG procedures provide the best outcomes, whereas ADMG or EMD in conjunction with CAF may be used as an alternative.

Although CT and ADM have a slightly different histological appearance, both can successfully be used to cover denuded roots with similar attachments and no adverse healing.

Topographical aberrations in a residual edentulous ridge often prevent establishment of a satisfactory pontic/ridge relationship. An improved technique is described for predictable augmentation of localized alveolar-ridge deficiencies. Results are reported from 21 cases involving 26 sites. All 14 sites using fibrous connective tissue grafts demonstrated shrinkage, although an improvement in residual ridge contour was obtained. Hydroxylapatite implant material was placed in 12 sites with shrinkage seen in only two sites. Advantages, requirements for success and technical considerations of the improved technique are discussed.

Predictable coverage of deep isolated mandibular gingival recessions is one of the most challenging endeavors in plastic-esthetic periodontal surgery, and limited data is available in the literature. The aim of this paper is to present the rationale, the step-by-step procedure, and the results obtained in a series of 24 patients treated by means of a novel surgical technique (the laterally closed tunnel [LCT]) specifically designed for deep isolated mandibular recessions. A total of 24 healthy patients (21 women and 3 men, mean age 25.75 ± 7.12 years) exhibiting one single deep mandibular Miller Class I (n = 4), II (n = 10), or III (n = 10) gingival recession ≥ 4 mm were consecutively treated with LCT in conjunction with an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and palatal subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). The following clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and 12 months postoperatively: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), recession depth (RD), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). The primary outcome variable was CRC. The postoperative morbidity was low, and no complications, such as bleeding, infections/abscesses, or loss of SCTG, occurred. At 12 months, CRC was obtained in 17 of the 24 defects (70.83%), while in the remaining 7 defects RC amounted to 80% to 90% (in 6 cases) and 79% (in 1 case). Of the 17 defects exhibiting CRC, 12 were central incisors and 5 were canines. With respect to defect type, CRC was found in 3 of the 4 Miller Class I, 8 of the 10 Class II, and in 6 of the 10 Class III defects. Mean RD changed from 5.14 ± 1.26 mm at baseline to 0.2 ± 0.37 mm at 12 months, while MRC amounted to 4.94 ± 1.19 mm, representing 96.11% (P < .0001). Mean KTW increased from 1.41 ± 1.00 mm at baseline to 4.14 ± 1.67 mm (P < .0001) at 12 months, yielding a KTW gain of 2.75 ± 1.52 (P < .0001). No statistically significant changes in mean PD occurred following root coverage surgery (1.8 ± 0.2 mm at baseline and 2.1 ± 0.3 mm at 12 months). The present results suggest that the LCT is a valuable approach for the treatment of deep isolated mandibular Miller Class I, II, and III gingival recessions.