Case Report
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2015; 3(2): 199-203
Published online Feb 16, 2015. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v3.i2.199
Gingival unit transfer using in the Miller III recession defect treatment
Selin Yıldırım, Bahar Kuru
Selin Yıldırım, Bahar Kuru, Department of Periodontology, Dental Faculty, Marmara University, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey
Author contributions: Kuru B designed the report; Kuru B performed the surgery; Yıldırım S collected the patient’s clinical data and wrote the paper.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Dr. Selin Yıldırım, Department of Periodontology, Dental Faculty, Marmara University, Büyükçiftlik Sok. No. 6 Nişantaşı, 34365 Istanbul, Turkey. yildirimselin@hotmail.com
Telephone: +90-53-35426812 Fax: +90-212-2465247
Received: July 29, 2014
Peer-review started: July 29, 2014
First decision: September 16, 2014
Revised: November 4, 2014
Accepted: November 17, 2014
Article in press: November 19, 2014
Published online: February 16, 2015
Abstract

The most significant factor for the success in soft tissue grafts is the synergistic relation between vascular configuration and involved tissues. In the soft tissue graft procedures, site specific donor tissue is assumed to have improved potential for function and aesthetic survive at recipient sites. On a clinical level, using site specific gingival unit graft that placed on traditionally prepared recipient site, results in predictable root coverage. In this case report the clinical effectiveness of gingival unit transfer (GUT) technique performed on Miller III recession was presented and a similar recession case treated with free gingival graft (FGG) technique for comparison. Probing depth, recession depth, keratinized tissue width and clinical attachment level clinical parameters were measured at baseline and postoperative 8 mo. Percentage of defect coverage was evaluated at postoperative 8 mo. Creeping attachment was assessed at postoperative 1, 3, 6 and 8 mo. The GUT revealed better defect coverage and creeping attachment results than the FGG in the treatment of Miller III defects.

Keywords: Autografting, Gingiva, Gingival recession, Tooth root, Transplants

Core tip: On a clinical level, using site specific vascular configuration gingival unit graft for donor tissue that placed on traditionally prepared recipient site, results in predictable defect coverage. This report was to evaluate effectiveness of gingival unit transfer technique in comparison with free gingival graft technique on clinical parameters in the Miller III recessions treatment.