Periodontal Soft Tissue Non–Root Coverage Procedures: Practical Applications From the AAP Regeneration Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focused Clinical Question: What are the indications and clinical applications for gingival augmentation procedures, and what factors guide the choice among treatment options in specific situations? Summary: Although there is still controversy regarding whether there needs to be a minimum amount of attached gingiva to maintain the stability of the gingival margin, prospective and retrospective studies have shown that, in the presence of suboptimal plaque control and clinical inflammation, attachment loss and gingival recession (GR) may result unless a minimum amount of keratinized tissue (KT) and attached gingiva are present. Treatment of mucogingival deformities requires gingival augmentation procedures that address both a functional and esthetic component for the patient. Although free gingival grafts (FGGs) are considered the gold standard for treatment of GR defects to obtain root coverage, augmentation of KT and attached gingiva may be accomplished by FGG or other autogenous grafting options, including the free connective tissue graft, the lateral pedicle graft, and the double papilla technique. In addition, the modified apically repositioned flap can be considered in some instances. Alternatives to autogenous graft tissue include acellular dermal matrix, extracellular matrix membrane, bilayer collagen matrix, and living cellular construct. Conclusions: Understanding the clinical importance of the presence of a minimum amount of attached gingiva in patients with suboptimal hygiene is an important first step in addressing the condition. Patient education to address plaque control and counseling to quit smoking in patients who are smokers help enhance the success of these mucogingival surgical procedures. An analysis of patient-specific factors will help with the appropriate choice of surgical procedures aimed at augmenting the dimension of KT/attached gingival tissue. Evidence supporting the treatment decisions described in this practical application is summarized in the companion papers from the American Academy of Periodontology Regeneration Workshop (Kim and Neiva, J Periodontol 2015;86(Suppl.):S56-S72; Scheyer et al., J Periodontol 2015;86(Suppl.):S73-S76).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".