Histological and Clinical Evaluation of De-epithelialized Connective Tissue Grafts Obtained by Different Methods

Gingival recession, defined as the apical displacement of the gingival margin relative to the cementoenamel junction, is a common clinical condition associated with both functional and esthetic concerns. Subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) combined with coronally advanced flap (CAF) procedures are widely regarded as the gold standard for root coverage, particularly in patients with thin gingival phenotypes. However, SCTGs may contain undesirable components such as adipose tissue, glandular structures, and neural elements, which can negatively affect graft integration and healing.

To overcome these limitations, de-epithelialized connective tissue grafts (De-CTGs) have been introduced as an alternative, offering a more homogeneous connective tissue composition. Despite their advantages, one of the major challenges associated with De-CTGs is the potential presence of residual epithelial remnants, which may impair healing and compromise clinical outcomes.

Various de-epithelialization techniques have been proposed, including the use of scalpels, burs, lasers, and more recently, radiofrequency (RF) devices. RF technology operates at ultra-high frequencies (3-4 MHz) and has been associated with minimal thermal damage, reduced tissue trauma, faster healing, and improved postoperative comfort compared to conventional methods. However, its application as a de-epithelialization technique in connective tissue graft harvesting for gingival recession treatment has not been previously investigated.

The present study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial involving 48 patients with gingival recession defects. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: in the first group, De-CTGs were prepared using an extraoral scalpel technique, while in the second group, de-epithelialization was performed intraorally using an RF device. All grafts were used in conjunction with CAF surgery.

The outcomes of the study were evaluated through both clinical and histological parameters. Clinical assessments included root coverage, keratinized tissue width gain, probing depth, and clinical attachment level. Histological analysis focused on the presence or absence of epithelial remnants within the grafts. Additionally, surgical time and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, such as pain and discomfort, were recorded to assess patient-centered benefits.