Recession defects may be covered using ADMA or CTG, with no practical difference. However, CTG results in significantly greater gain of keratinized gingiva.

Aims: To compare the gene expression profiles and proliferation rates of fibroblasts from the oral lining and masticatory mucosae.Materials and methods: Primary human fibroblasts were retrieved from the posterior masticatory hard palate and the lining alveolar mucosa of five individuals. The gene expression profile was evaluated using total RNA sequencing. The proliferation rate was determined colorimetrically.Results: Substantial differences in specific gene groups and pathways were observed between fibroblasts from the two tissues. Significantly enriched gene ontology processes were focused on the extracellular components. Lining mucosa fibroblasts exhibited significantly higher expression of the principal structural collagens, cranial neural crest markers, and homeobox genes associated with positional memory. Masticatory mucosa fibroblasts showed greater expression of genes related to transforming growth factor-β signalling, which may be associated with fibrosis. In addition, they expressed higher levels of the EP 2 prostaglandin E 2 receptor and Toll-like receptor 1. Finally, masticatory mucosa fibroblasts exhibited a 10%-30% higher proliferation rate.Conclusions: Fibroblasts from the lining and masticatory oral mucosae are phenotypically heterogeneous, presenting distinct gene expression profiles and proliferation rates. These features may contribute to their specific physiological functions and have relevance for potential therapeutic applications.

Objective Different root modifiers have been proposed in the literature with an attempt to improve the healing process and the success rate of root coverage procedures. The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of three different types of root surface conditioning, namely, tetracycline (TTC), ethylene‐di‐amino‐tetra‐acetic acid (EDTA) and saline, on the outcome of root coverage procedures applying the same surgical technique. Materials and methods Twenty‐nine patients with 60 Classes I, II, or III recession defects were treated using connective tissue with a partial‐thickness double‐pedicle graft. In 21 recession defects root surface was treated with TTC and, in other 21, with EDTA, while in the remaining, saline solution was applied. Statistical analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and Kruskal‐Wallis, Mann–Whitney, and chi‐square tests. Results Differences between pre‐ and postoperative values were statistically significant only within but not between groups. Mean root coverage was 73.25%, 69.19%, and 82.17% in the TTC, the EDTA, and the saline groups, respectively. The study revealed no statistically significant differences for all evaluated parameters between groups. Conclusion Within the limits of this study, root conditioning, prior to root coverage procedures, does not significantly affect their outcome. Clinical significance Clinical outcome of root coverage procedures is not related to the type of root surface conditioning.

Background and Objectives: The success rates of surgical dental implant insertions are high. However, knowledge of patients’ recovery is still lacking. “Health-related quality of life” (HRQOL) questionnaires are gaining popularity in all fields of medicine. The present survey assessed the perception of recovery after the surgical placement of dental implants. Materials and Methods: Forty individuals (26 women and 14 men; mean age, 55 ± 12 years) filled a questionnaire evaluating patients’ perception of recovery for 7 consecutive days post-surgery. Confounding factors included age, gender, oral habits, smoking, bruxism, bone quality (tactile evaluation) and quantity, implant location, number of implants, implant type, length and diameter, one-stage vs. two-stage, and the need for bone grafting. Results: The most serious difficulties were found in swelling, which became minimal after 5 days, followed by eating everyday food, ability to enjoy everyday food, maximal pain and average pain (3 days); analgesics consumption (2.5 days); limitations in daily routine, mouth opening, and speech (2 days); swallowing and sleep (1.5 days); and, within 1 day, all other measures attained minimal levels. Gender, and implant location (anterior vs. posterior) were significant predictor variables exerting their different characteristic delayed recoveries. Conclusions: (1) Patients should expect, in general, recovery within 4 days after dental implant placement; (2) women will experience a delayed recovery, (3) implants placed in the intercanine area will result in postoperative eating difficulties for nearly one week, and (4) the number of implants placed during the same appointment has no effect on post treatment recovery.

No abstract