A retrospective comparison of 3 approaches of vestibuloplasty around mandibular molar implants: apically positioned flap versus free gingival graft versus modified periosteal fenestration.

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to clinically evaluate the efficacy of vestibuloplasty around lower molar implants using 3 different modalities: apically positioned flap alone (APF), APF with a free gingival graft (FGG), and APF with modified periosteal fenestration (mPF).MethodsThree different vestibuloplasty procedures during second-stage implant surgery were performed at the mandibular molar area in 61 patients with a shallow vestibule and insufficient keratinized tissue (KT). The clinical measurements of KT width were recorded at baseline, immediately after surgery (T0), 6 months after surgery (T6), and 12 months after surgery (T12). Soft tissue esthetic scores were measured.ResultsAn additional KT width gain from baseline to T12 of approximately 2 mm was obtained with FGG and mPF compared to that with APF. Shrinkage of the re-established tissue was lower with mPF and FGG than with APF, whereas the esthetic profile was better with APF and mPF than with FGG.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, mPF showed potential as a promising approach for vestibuloplasty around the lower molar implants compared to the traditional APF and FGG.