Histologic changes following the grafting of connective tissue into human gingiva

Overexpression of Fra‐1, c‐Jun and c‐Fos in odontogenic keratocysts: potential correlation with proliferative and anti‐apoptotic activity

“…26 Oral soft tissues are complex biological systems with the components of their extracellular matrix (ECM) responding differentially to physiological forces, which include hydrodynamic stresses, compression, elongation, friction and shear generated during saliva flow, mastication, speech and toothbrushing, etc. [36][37][38] In our present study, we found that a few Fra-1, c-Jun and c-Fos were expressed in the epithelium of oral mucosa, which might be a possible explanation for Fra-1, c-Jun and c-Fos activity induced by various physiological environmental stresses. Similarly, in the oral and maxillofacial diseases such as jaw cysts, the cyst wall was also exposed to hydrostatic pressures and osmotic pressures, etc.…”

“…AP‐1 family transcription factors are regulated in a given cell by a large number of physiological and pathological stimuli, including cytokines, growth factors, stress signals and oncogenic stimuli, etc . Oral soft tissues are complex biological systems with the components of their extracellular matrix (ECM) responding differentially to physiological forces, which include hydrodynamic stresses, compression, elongation, friction and shear generated during saliva flow, mastication, speech and toothbrushing, etc . In our present study, we found that a few Fra‐1, c‐Jun and c‐Fos were expressed in the epithelium of oral mucosa, which might be a possible explanation for Fra‐1, c‐Jun and c‐Fos activity induced by various physiological environmental stresses.…”

Relative Composition of Fibrous Connective and Fatty/Glandular Tissue in Connective Tissue Grafts Depends on the Harvesting Technique but not the Donor Site of the Hard Palate

“…It seems reasonable to assume that there are differences in the molecular cues and signals, or the availability thereof, expressed in the submucosa consisting mainly of FGT compared to those expressed in the lamina propria that largely consists of fibrous CT. Such differences could readily explain the differences in the observations in the study of Ouhayoun et al 31 as well as those of previous trials 28–30 …”

“…It is generally accepted that epithelial differentiation is largely dependent on molecular cues and signals from the underlying CT, rather than primarily the result of functional adaptation. Indeed, preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated that CTGs from attached gingiva (basically consisting of fibrous CT) or from superficial layers of marginal aspects of the palate (containing large portions of lamina propria) attain a keratinized epithelium surface after healing 28–30 . On the other hand, in a clinical study on the keratinization potential of CTGs, 31 thick palatal FGGs were split into two thinner grafts, i.e., a superficial epithelial–CTG and a deeper CTG, and transplanted into contralateral recipient mucosal beds in the lower canine/premolar area that lacked attached gingiva.…”

Retained Free Gingival Graft Rugae: A 9‐Year Case Report

“…In the anterior aspect of the hard palate, long papillae within the lamina propria and thick, dense collagenous tissue are found under the transverse ridges or rugae. 14 Karring et al, 15 as well as Edel and Faccini, 16 have demonstrated that the characteristics of the epithelium are determined by the underlying connective tissue. Matter et al 17 also reported that the structural characteristics of palatal mucosa were conserved as FGGs matured.…”