Covering Miller Class I Anterior Mandibular Fracture: A Comparative Evaluation of Free Gingival Graft (FGG) Versus Langer's Connective Tissue Graft (L-CTG)
Keywords:
Root Coverage, Free Gingival Graft, Langer’s Connective Tissue Graft, Miller Class I Recession, MandibleAbstract
Background: Gingival recession occurs due to multiple etiological and predisposing factors. The objective of this study was to compare the root coverage achieved by two techniques—the Free Gingival Graft (FGG) and Langer’s Connective Tissue Graft (L-CTG)—in patients presenting with Miller Class I recession affecting the mandibular anterior teeth.
Materials and Methods: This research utilized a retrospective case-control design and was conducted in Ilam Province in 2020. The study population comprised 20 patients referred to a private clinic who presented with Miller Class I gingival recession on their mandibular anterior teeth (with 1 to 2 mm of attached gingiva width). These patients were divided into two groups: Group I (10 subjects) treated using the conventional Free Gingival Graft (FGG) technique, and Group II (10 subjects) treated using the Langer’s Connective Tissue Graft (L-CTG) technique, harvested from the palate using the Trape Door technique. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 16.
Results: The findings of this study indicate that both FGG and SECTG are effective methods for root coverage. When comparing the degree of anatomical root exposure between the two groups, this parameter showed a greater reduction in the SECTG group; however, this difference was not statistically significant ( ). Furthermore, the reduction in Clinical Crown Length was greater in the SECTG group than in the FGG group ( ), though this difference was also non-significant. Comparing recession width, the reduction was greater in the SECTG group ( ), but this difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the increase in the amount of attached gingiva was greater in the SECTG group than in the FGG group ( ), though this difference was also non-significant.
Conclusion: Given that both the FGG and SECTG techniques demonstrated similar efficacy in treating gingival recession and achieving root coverage, and considering that the tissue harvesting method in the Langer technique (SECTG) is inherently less invasive than the free harvesting required for the FGG technique, it is concluded that the use of the Langer technique (SECTG) is recommended as the preferred treatment modality.
References
Preshaw PM, Alba AL, Herrera D, Jepsen S, Konstantinidis A, Makrilakis K, et al. Periodontitis and diabetes: a two-way relationship. Diabetologia. 2012;55(1):21-31.
Otomo-Corgel J, Pucher JJ, Rethman MP, Reynolds MA. State of the science: chronic periodontitis and systemic health. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice. 2012;12(3):20-8.
Yaghini J, Naghsh N, Naghdi Badi R. Comparative Evaluation of Severity of Periodontitis in Patients with and without Dyssomnias. The Journal of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences. 2024;32(5):7836-46.
Kowalski J, La Rosa GRM, Di Stefano A, Gangi D, Sahni V, Yilmaz HG, et al. Navigating the dual burden of dental and periodontal care in individuals who also smoke: an expert review. Journal of Dentistry. 2025:105744.
Nagate RR, Chaturvedi S, Al-Ahmari MMM, Al-Qarni MA, Gokhale ST, Ahmed AR, et al. Importance of periodontal phenotype in periodontics and restorative dentistry: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1-10.
Leskelä J, Putaala J, Martinez-Majander N, Tulkki L, Manzoor M, Zaric S, et al. Periodontitis, dental procedures, and young-onset cryptogenic stroke. Journal of dental research. 2024;103(5):494-501.
Listl S, Galloway J, Mossey PA, Marcenes W. Global economic impact of dental diseases. Journal of dental research. 2015;94(10):1355-61.
Botelho J, Machado V, Leira Y, Proença L, Chambrone L, Mendes JJ. Economic burden of periodontitis in the United States and Europe: An updated estimation. Journal of Periodontology. 2022;93(3):373-9.
Perrell-Jones C, Ireland R. What factors influence patient compliance with supportive periodontal therapy in a general practice setting? British dental journal. 2016;221(11):701-4.
Behal R, Jan SM, Hussain H. Evaluation of the effect of various factors on patient compliance among patients visiting Govt. Dental College and Hospital, Srinagar. IAIM. 2018;5:55-63.
Rashidi Maybodi F, Hosseini Yekani A, Raeesi A. Investigating Factors Affecting Compliance of Patients Who are Candidates for Non-Surgical Periodontal Treatment Referred to Yazd Faculty of Dentistry in 2023. The Journal of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences. 2024;32(4):7773-84.
Moghaddas H, Esfahanian V, Moghaddas O. Efficacy of subepithelial connective tissue grafts in the treatment of Miller's Class I and II gingival recessions. Journal of Isfahan Dental School. 2011;7(3).
Imber J-C, Kasaj A. Treatment of gingival recession: when and how? International dental journal. 2021;71(3):178-87.
Singh J, Rathod VJ, Rao PR, Patil AA, Langade DG, Singh RK. Correlation of gingival thickness with gingival width, probing depth, and papillary fill in maxillary anterior teeth in students of a dental college in Navi Mumbai. Contemporary clinical dentistry. 2016;7(4):535-8.
Lin GH, Chan HL, Wang HL. The significance of keratinized mucosa on implant health: a systematic review. Journal of periodontology. 2013;84(12):1755-67.
Mousavi T, Fakhari E, Roshandel G. Investigation of the Relationship of Gingival Biotype with the Width of Keratinized Gingiva, Depth of Probe, and Height of Papilla in Patients Referring to the Dental School at Golestan University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Mashhad Dental School. 2020;44(3):271-8.
Fatemi K, Khoshkhoo nejad A, Miremadi S. Clinical evaluation of denuded root coverage with subepithelial connective tissue graft. Journal of Mashhad Dental School. 2004;28(Issue 3,4):227-34.
Norouzi N, Kavousi A, Moosazade M, Esalmi E. Investigating Root Canal Number and Morphology of Mandibular Anterior Teeth Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 2019;29(180):119-23.
Kiani S, Baharifar M, Rostami S. Evaluation of Patient's Satisfaction with Free Gingival and Sub-Epithelial Connective Tissue Graft Treatment in Isfahan. Journal of Mashhad Dental School. 2022;46(4):410-22.
Pini Prato G, Baccetti T, Giorgetti R, Agudio G, Cortellini P. Mucogingival interceptive surgery of buccally-erupted premolars in patients scheduled for orthodontic treatment. II. Surgically treated versus nonsurgically treated cases. J Periodontol. 2000;71(2):182-7.
Almeida VC, Pannuti CM, Ferreira MS, Lazarin RO, Romito GA, Jung RE, et al. Conventional versus flap-protected free gingival graft: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res. 2023;37:e001.
Liu Y, Qu J, Zheng J. Clinical efficacy of free gingival graft versus collagen matrix for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Odontology. 2025.
AlJasser RN, AlSarhan MA, AlOtaibi DH, AlOraini S, AlNuwaiser R, AlOtaibi A, et al. Comparison of Polymeric Cyanoacrylate Adhesives with Suturing in Free Gingival Graft Stability: A Split Mouth Trial. Polymers. 2021;13(20):3575.
Wessel JR, Tatakis DN. Patient outcomes following subepithelial connective tissue graft and free gingival graft procedures. Journal of periodontology. 2008;79(3):425-30.
Cevallos CAR, de Resende DRB, Damante CA, Sant’Ana ACP, de Rezende MLR, Greghi SLA, et al. Free gingival graft and acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation: a 15-year clinical study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2020;24(3):1197-203.
