Selecting a connective tissue graft
or a free gingival graft
by Dr. David Paulson
There are many soft tissue grafting techniques available today, but two
of the most common remain the free gingival graft and connective tissue
graft. Both are autogenous grafts, meaning they are from the patient’s own
body, and are free soft tissue grafts, meaning they are completely excised
from one part of the body (usually the patient’s palate) and transferred
to a separate recipient site. From a patient’s perspective, these surgical
procedures may seem very similar and might all be considered a “gum graft,” but there
are distinguishing differences between the two in regard to indications and techniques.
The primary anatomic difference between the two types of grafts is that free gingival
grafts (Figs. 1a–1c) retain the overlying epithelium1 while subepithelial connective
tissue grafts (Figs. 2a–c) exclude the epithelium and are composed only of connective
tissue and sometimes adipose tissue, glandular tissue and/or periosteum, depending on
the depth they are harvested from.2
Figs. 1a-c: Epithelialized free gingival grafts.
Figs. 2a-c: Subepithelial connective tissue grafts.
Goals of tissue grafting
The goals of performing soft tissue grafts usually fall under two categories: root
coverage and soft tissue augmentation. We almost always try to obtain some amount of
root coverage and/or aim to increase the amount of tissue. There may be some instances
where root coverage is not attempted at all or the goal is just simply adding keratinized
tissue—on an edentulous ridge, around implants lacking keratinized gingiva or during
vestibuloplasty—but in general, root coverage is what a major portion of tissue grafts
are performed for.
Root coverage from a soft tissue graft will either be complete or partial after final
healing of the surgical site. A new classification system adopted by the American Academy
of Periodontology is helpful in classifying recession defects as Recession Type 1, 2 or 3.3
This classification system helps give clinicians a better idea of how much root coverage
is achievable before surgery. Complete root coverage is possible only when there is no interproximal attachment loss on the adjacent
teeth and there is adequate blood supply for the
graft to heal at the level of the cementoenamel
junction (CEJ). Partial root coverage may
be the goal and expected outcome in cases
where interproximal attachment loss is
present. These cases are still successful and
increase the health of a particular site, but
the expected outcomes need to be clearly
communicated with the patient beforehand.
Increasing the amount of tissue can
take on various forms, including increasing
tissue thickness, increasing the amount
of attached gingiva or adding keratinized
tissue. These can be particularly helpful
in patients with thin gingival phenotypes,
implants lacking keratinized gingiva and in
patients undergoing orthodontic treatment
who have minimal attached gingiva.
More than likely, you’re seeing some
form of soft tissue defect in your practice on
a daily basis. This could be some recession,
thin tissue resulting in crown margins or
implant abutments being visible through
the tissue, a lack of keratinized gingiva,
or an aberrant frenum attachment. All
of these situations can often be improved
by treatment with a soft tissue graft, but
deciding which type of grafting procedure
to employ is critical to a successful outcome.
Connective tissue graft case
A common clinical scenario we see
is a tooth presenting with recession and
some sort of Class V buccal restoration.
The cementoenamel junction is no longer
visible and the restoration may extend both
coronal and apical to the CEJ.
Soft tissue grafts do not adhere to
most restorative materials, including the
most commonly used composite resins and
amalgam. If these materials are present,
they need to be removed before surgery,
at least to the level of the CEJ or line of
expected root coverage.
In the instance below (Figs. 3–11), we need to visualize where the
CEJ of the tooth was originally located by
using landmarks such as adjacent teeth and
the interproximal CEJ of the same tooth.4
It is important to note that the soft
tissue cannot be grafted to cover coronal
to the location of the original height of the
CEJ. The only restorative materials that
have shown the ability to have connective
tissue or epithelial adhesion are glass
ionomers.5
Fig. 3: Patient presents with localized recession
on tooth #11.
Fig. 4: Localized recession and Class V buccal
composite restoration causing inflammation.
Fig. 5: Recontouring of restoration with carbide
finishing bur and localized scaling results in
healthier tissue appearance at 1 month. This is
the day of surgery.
Fig. 6: Flap reflected.
Fig. 7: Subepithelial connective tissue graft
harvested.
Fig. 8: Graft sutured into place with resorbable
sutures just apical to the cementoenamel
junction.
Fig. 9: Coronal advancement of the flap and
suturing for primary closure and complete
coverage of the graft.
Fig. 10: Complete root coverage obtained
eight weeks postoperatively.
Figs. 11a-d: Before and after.
Noncarious cervical lesions
Noncarious cervical lesions present a
similar challenge to what was described
previously with Class V buccal restorations.
The CEJ is no longer visible and we need
to estimate where it was to determine how
much soft tissue coverage can be achieved.
The decision about whether to place a
restoration depends on the location of the
defect. If the defect is nearly all below the
level of the CEJ and primarily composed
of root surface, no restoration is needed;
a tissue graft can fill that void and cover
the defect.
If the defect extends above the level
of the CEJ in the area of the enamel, then
the restorative dentist may want to place a
restoration to re-create the CEJ. Whether
this is done before or after grafting is a
decision that needs to be agreed upon by
the restorative dentist and the periodontist.
But it is important to keep in mind that
the maximum root coverage achievable is
at the level of the CEJ if the interproximal
attachment is intact. If there is interproximal
attachment loss, the amount of root coverage
that is achievable decreases.
Free gingival graft case
Another common clinical situation that
arises is the presence of localized recession
associated with a frenum attachment and
minimal or no attached keratinized gingiva
(Fig. 12). You may see these frequently in
your practice on the buccal surfaces of
mandibular central incisors. A free gingival
graft is an excellent treatment technique to
address all the clinical concerns at once.
Free gingival grafts (Figs. 13–15) are
able to obtain some root coverage (albeit
less predictably than connective tissue
grafts6), increase the amount of attached
keratinized gingiva and relieve frenum
attachments. While the aesthetics of a
healed free gingival graft are less desirable
than those of a connective tissue graft, the
gingiva of mandibular central incisors is
rarely fully displayed by patients.
Fig. 12: Preoperative photo of #24 and #25.
Note the localized 3 mm recession, 1 mm of
keratinized gingiva and a frenum attachment.
Fig. 13: Recipient bed preparation. Creation
of a butt joint with the papillae and extending
3 mm laterally and apically from the exposed
root surfaces.
Fig. 14: Graft stabilized in place with 6–0
polypropylene sutures. These are monofilament
and nonresorbable.
Fig. 15: 18-month follow-up. Nearly complete
root coverage, thick band of attached keratinized
gingiva, elimination of frenum pull.
Criteria for successful soft
tissue grafting procedures
• Surgical site free of plaque
and calculus.
• Adequate blood supply.
• Anatomy of the recipient
and donor sites.
• Stability of the grafted tissue
to the recipient site.
• Minimal trauma to the surgical site.
Conclusion
The use of autogenous tissue grafts
in periodontal surgery is supported by
significant evidence.7 A free gingival graft
remains an excellent choice for increasing
soft-tissue thickness and keratinized gingiva
around both teeth and dental implants. A
connective tissue graft provides the greatest
predictability for achieving root coverage as
well as higher aesthetic results. Establishing
which technique is appropriate for a particular
clinical situation is of great importance before
any periodontal soft-tissue graft surgery.
References
1. Naber, JM. Free gingival grafts. Periodontics. 1966;4:243-
245.
2. Langer B, Calagna LJ. The subepithelial connective tissue
graft. A new approach to the enhancement of anterior cosmetics.
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1982;2:22-33.
3. Cairo F, Nieri M, Cincinelli S, Mervelt J, Pagliaro U. The
interproximal clinical attachment level to classify gingival
recessions and predict root coverage outcomes: an explorative
and reliability study. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(7):661-
666.
4. Cairo, Francesco and Giovanpaolo Pini-Prato. “A technique
to identify and reconstruct the cementoenamel junction level
using combined periodontal and restorative treatment of
gingival recession. A prospective clinical study.” Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 30 6 (2010): 573-81.
5. Dragoo MR. “Resion-ionomer and hybrid-ionomer cements:
Part II, human clinical and histologic wound healing
responses in specific periodontal lesions.” Int J Periodontics
Restorative Dent 1997; 17:75-87.
6. Jahnke PV, Sandifer JB, Gher ME, Gray JL, Richardson AC.
Thick free gingival and connective tissue autografts for root
coverage. J Periodontol 1993;64:315-322.
7. Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, McGuire MK, et al. Autogenous
soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic
surgical reconstruction. J Periodontol. 2020;91(1):9-16.
Dr. David Paulson is a board-certified periodontist practicing in Hudson, Wisconsin. He obtained
his bachelor’s and DDS degree
from Marquette University
and his master’s and specialty
certificate in periodontology from
the University of Minnesota.
Paulson recently achieved
diplomate status with the American Board of Periodontology.
His professional interests include the treatment of
periodontal disease, soft tissue grafting, dental implants
and guided tissue regeneration.