Clinical Trials

By Dr. Ajay Mahajan , Prof. Jaya Dixit
Corresponding Author Dr. Ajay Mahajan
HPGDC,SHIMLA, - India 171001
Submitting Author Dr. Ajay Mahajan
Other Authors Prof. Jaya Dixit
KGMU, - India


Acellular Demal Matrix Graft, Gingival, Recession, Satisfaction.

Mahajan A, Dixit J. Patient Satisfaction With Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft In The Treatment Of Multiple Gingival Recession Defects - A Clinical Study. WebmedCentral CLINICAL TRIALS, DENTISTRY 2010;1(7):WMC00458
doi: 10.9754/journal.wmc.2010.00458
Submitted on: 30 Jul 2010 09:41:11 PM GMT
Published on: 30 Jul 2010 09:42:22 PM GMT


Background: The aim of the present study was to evaluate Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in terms of patient satisfaction in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects.
Methods: Patients ( 2 females and 3 males ) with multiple gingival recession in relation to labial aspect of selected teeth were treated using Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft under a coronally positioned flap. Patient’s satisfaction was assessed using a three point rating scale.
Results : After six months sites treated with Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft had mean defect coverage of 89.14%.
Conclusion:Findings of the present study highlighted the fact that patient satisfaction should be recognized as important as other clinical health measures when evaluating perioplastic aesthetic procedures.


Successful coverage of exposed roots for aesthetic and functional reasons has been the objective of various mucogingival procedures. Multiple techniques have been developed to obtain predictable root coverage[1-3]. The purpose of developing newer and newer methods for root coverage is to increase predictability, reduce patient discomfort, number of surgical sites, and improve patient comfort together with need to satisfy the patient’s esthetic demands, which include final color and tissue blend of the grafted area. Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft†is a human soft tissue chemically processed to remove all epidermal and dermal cells(antigenic cells)while preserving the remaining bioactive dermal matrix composed of collagen, elastin, blood vessel channels that support revascularization, cell repopulation and tissue remodelling which facilitates its integration into the periodontal tissue. Although there are numerous studies suggesting that Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft can be used predictably to treat multiple gingival recession defects with fewer surgical procedures and less surgical trauma [4], there are no studies describing patient satisfaction with the treatment utilizing Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft. The aim of the present study was to evaluate Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in terms of patient satisfaction in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects.
Alloderm (Lifecell Corp.) Branchburg NJ.


Patients (2 females and 3 males) in age group 25-35 years (mean age 27.2 years) were randomly selected from the outpatient Department of Periodontics, U.P. King George’s University of Dental Sciences, Lucknow with multiple gingival recession defects in relation to labial aspect of selected teeth. Cases were chosen based on the following inclusion criteria: non-compromised systemic health and no contraindication for periodontal surgery, Miller Class I or II recession defect >2mm in upper and/or lower anterior teeth, the involved tooth should be well aligned in the dental arch and should be free of periapical pathology. Exclusion criteria were: smokers and chewers of tobacco, endodontically treated test or control sites, root surface restorations on test or control sites, pregnant and lactating women, use of fixed orthodontic or removable appliances and a previous root coverage procedure at test sites.
Patient’s satisfaction was assessed using a three point rating scale: fully satisfied, satisfied, and unsatisfied in which the patient was questioned about his/her satisfaction with regard to the following patient centered criteria:
1. Root coverage attained.
2. Relief from dentinal hypersensitivity.
3. Color of gums.
4. Shape and contour of gums
5. Intraoperative pain and discomfort
6. Duration of procedure
7. Postoperative pain and discomfort.
8. Operator’s behavior and patient handling.
9. Cost-effectiveness.
10. Overall-satisfaction.
The Following scores were given by the patients:
Patients SatisfactionScore
Fully Satisfied3
Unsatisfied 1
All the measurements were recorded preoperatively i.e. 0 day (just before surgery) and postoperatively at 6 months with a calibrated UNC-15 probe (HU Friedy Co. USA).
Pre-surgical Management:
A general assessment of Patients was made through their history, clinical examination and routine laboratory investigations. All the selected Patients received phase-I therapy, which included oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing by both ultrasonic and hand instruments.
Surgical Management:
Prior to surgery the consent form was signed by the Patients. One month after phase-I therapy, the Patients were subjected to surgical procedure. The facial skin all around oral cavity was scrubbed with 7.5% povidone iodine solution and intra oral surgical site was painted with 5% povidone iodine solution.
Surgical Procedure :
All cases were operated under local anesthesia with a solution of 2% Lignocaine with 1:100,000 adrenaline. The surgical protocol used for the Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft group was based on the technique described in detail by Dodge et al5 and Haim Tal.6 The coronally positioned flap used was based on a design described by Bernimoulin et al.7 The Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft was placed against the root surfaces with its connective tissue side facing the overlying gingival flap and was sutured using a sling suture technique with a synthetic 5-0 bioabsorbable suture¶. After placement of the Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft, the flap was coronally positioned and sutured using a sling suture technique with a non-resorbable 4-0 silk suture. The releasing incisions were closed with interrupted sutures. Postoperative instructions were given to the Patients. Doxycycline was prescribed in antimicrobial dosage (100 mg twice on first day, then 100 mg once daily) for 2 weeks. Nimesulide 100mg twice daily and vitamin B-complex, 1 capsule daily was also prescribed for 2 weeks. During the recovery phase of the wound the patient was recommended to follow scrupulously all the normal oral postoperative hygiene instructions. Patients were instructed not to brush the operated tooth for two weeks and were advised to rinse the oral cavity with chlorhexidine (0.2%) mouthwash daily for at least two weeks. After 1 week, the periodontal dressing and sutures were removed and the surgical area was flushed with antimicrobial solution. Patients were recalled after every one week for the first 4 weeks, then every 2 weeks for the next 8 weeks and monthly until the end of the study.
Ethicon Division of Johnson And Johnson Ltd.


At the end of the present study sites treated with Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft had mean defect coverage of (89.14%). Significant reduction in gingival recession length was noticed at the end of the study (illustration 1). illustration 2 depicts scores given by the patients to rate the treatment. illustration 3 shows the weighted average for various satisfaction criteria.


Improving the quality of patient care is vital. Over the years various studies have been done to obtain predictable root coverage in patients with gingival recession defects [1-15]. Previous research was only focused on the evaluation and comparison of various techniques and the results were evaluated only in terms of objective clinical parameters (eg.percent root coverage, change in width of keratinized gingiva ). Data regarding patient satisfaction with the treatment is lacking, therefore in our study we attempted to assess Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft in terms of patient satisfaction.
Despite the small number of Patients treated for recession defects, significant findings emerged after 6 months evaluation. Sites treated with Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft had mean defect coverage of 89.14%. The result is comparable to the previous results obtained by 96%[5], 94.3%[8], 95.8%[9], 93%[10], 83.2%[11], 83.3%[12], 91.7%[13], 89.1%[14], 93.4%[15] .At the end of the study all the patients were satisfied with the treatment in terms of all the criteria except “duration of the procedure, post operative discomfort and cost effectiveness.” Patients found the procedure to be “lengthy”, this may be attributed to the time taken by the operator to suture the membrane over multiple teeth simultaneously .Some patients were not pleased with the postoperative phase and reported of pain and swelling which lasted for four to five days, this might be attributed to the initial reaction of the body to a foreign graft material. Also the fact that Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft was derived from human cadaveric skin was a cause of concern for two patients who were little hesitant to get the material grafted into their oral cavity. Cost of the material was a “major” factor which was a cause of concern for all the patients treated in this study and three patients enquired for some other affordable \and economical graft material.
In conclusion the findings of the present study highlighted the fact that Acellular Dermal Matrix Graft may be an excellent material from a operator’s point of view but when it comes to patient satisfaction there are still some areas which need improvement, hence patient satisfaction should be recognized as important as other clinical health measures and is a primary means of measuring the effectiveness of perioplastic aesthetic procedures.


1.American Academy of Periodontology. Academy Report. Oral reconstructive and corrective procedures used in periodontal therapy. J Periodontol 2005; 76: 1588-1600.
2.Bouchard P, Maiet J, Borghetti A. Decision making in aesthetics : Root coverage revisited. Periodontol 2000; 2001:97-120.
3.Wennstrom J. Mucogingival therapy. Ann Periodontol 1996; 671-701.
4.Gapski R, Parks CA, and Wong HL. Acellular dermal matrix for mucogingival surgery. A meta analysis. J Periodontol 2005; 76:1814-1822.
5.Dodge JR, Henderson R, Greenwell H. Root coverage without a palatal donor site using an acellular dermal graft. Periodontal Insights 1998; 5:5-8.
6.Tal H. Subgingival Acellular Dermal Matrix Allograft for the Treatment of Gingival Recession: A Case Report. J Periodontol 1999; 70:1118-1124.
7.Bernimoulin JP, Luscher B, Muhlemann HR. Coronally repositioned periodontal flap. Clinical evaluation after one year. J Clin Periodontol 1975; 2: 1-13.
8.Harris RJ. A comparison of root coverage obtained with a connective tissue graft versus an acellular dermal matrix. J Periodontol [abstract] 1999; 70:235.
9.Harris RJ. A comparative study of root coverage obtained with an acellular dermal matrix versus a connective tissue graft. Results of 107 recession defects in 50 consecutively treated patients. Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000; 20: 51-59.
10.Henderson RD, Greenwell H, Drisko C, et al. Predictable multiple site root coverage using an acellular dermal matrix allograft. J Periodontol 2001; 72:571-582.
11.Aichlemann – Reidy MB, Yokna RA, Evans GH, Nasr HF, Mayer ET. Clinical evaluation of acellular allograft dermis for the treatment of human gingival recession. J Periodontol 2001; 72: 998-1005.
12.Paolantonio M, Dolci M, Esposito P, et al. Subpedicle acellular dermal matrix graft and autogenous connective tissue graft in the treatment of gingival recessions: A comparative 1 year clinical study. J Periodontol 2002; 73: 1299-1307.
13.Harris RJ. Acellular dermal matrix used for root coverage : 18 month follow up observation Int. J. Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002; 22: 156-163.
14.Tal H, Moses O, Zohar R, Meir H, Nemcovsky C. Root coverage of advanced gingival recession : A comparative study between acellular dermal matrix allograft and subepithelial connective tissue grafts. J Periodontol 2002; 73:1405-1411.
15.Harris RJ. A short-term and long-term comparison of root coverage with an acellular dermal matrix and a subepithelial graft. J Periodontol 2005; 75:734-743.

Source(s) of Funding


Competing Interests



This article has been downloaded from WebmedCentral. With our unique author driven post publication peer review, contents posted on this web portal do not undergo any prepublication peer or editorial review. It is completely the responsibility of the authors to ensure not only scientific and ethical standards of the manuscript but also its grammatical accuracy. Authors must ensure that they obtain all the necessary permissions before submitting any information that requires obtaining a consent or approval from a third party. Authors should also ensure not to submit any information which they do not have the copyright of or of which they have transferred the copyrights to a third party.
Contents on WebmedCentral are purely for biomedical researchers and scientists. They are not meant to cater to the needs of an individual patient. The web portal or any content(s) therein is neither designed to support, nor replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her physician. Your use of the WebmedCentral site and its contents is entirely at your own risk. We do not take any responsibility for any harm that you may suffer or inflict on a third person by following the contents of this website.

0 comments posted so far

Please use this functionality to flag objectionable, inappropriate, inaccurate, and offensive content to WebmedCentral Team and the authors.


Author Comments
0 comments posted so far


What is article Popularity?

Article popularity is calculated by considering the scores: age of the article
Popularity = (P - 1) / (T + 2)^1.5
P : points is the sum of individual scores, which includes article Views, Downloads, Reviews, Comments and their weightage

Scores   Weightage
Views Points X 1
Download Points X 2
Comment Points X 5
Review Points X 10
Points= sum(Views Points + Download Points + Comment Points + Review Points)
T : time since submission in hours.
P is subtracted by 1 to negate submitter's vote.
Age factor is (time since submission in hours plus two) to the power of 1.5.factor.

How Article Quality Works?

For each article Authors/Readers, Reviewers and WMC Editors can review/rate the articles. These ratings are used to determine Feedback Scores.

In most cases, article receive ratings in the range of 0 to 10. We calculate average of all the ratings and consider it as article quality.

Quality=Average(Authors/Readers Ratings + Reviewers Ratings + WMC Editor Ratings)