Effects of 2 different flap techniques on clinical outcomes after epulis excision

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2025.05.011

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To evaluate the effects of normally positioned flap (NPF) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) techniques on clinical results after epulis excision. Methods ·A total of 55 patients with epulis who visited the Department of Periodontology, Shanghai Ninth People′s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine from August 2022 to December 2023 were included. The patients were divided into the NPF group and the CAF group. After epulis excision, the surgical area was closed using NPF or CAF technique. The following parameters were recorded: baseline epulis width (EW) and epulis height (EH); papilla width (PW) and papilla height (PH) at 6 months post-surgery; probing depth (PD), attachment loss (AL), and keratinized gingiva width (KGW) at both baseline and 6 months post-surgery. The esthetic outcomes were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS) by 2 periodontal specialists. t test was used to compare the differences in periodontal indices between baseline and 6 months post-surgery, as well as between the 2 flap techniques. Results ·At 6 months post-surgery, PD of the CAF group was (1.68±0.79) mm, significantly lower than at baseline (P<0.001), but not significantly different from that in the NPF group (P=0.365); the AL in the CAF group was (1.26±1.18) mm, not significantly different from baseline (P=0.746), but significantly lower than in the NPF group (P<0.001). At 6 months post-surgery, PH of the CAF group was (3.74±0.62) mm, significantly higher than that in the NPF group (P<0.001), and the VAS score of the CAF group was significantly higher than that of the NPF group (P<0.001). Conclusion ·Compared with NPF, CAF could effectively improve post-surgical KGW and reduce AL, which could prevent periodontal soft tissue defects, and improve esthetic outcome after epulis excision.

Key words: epulis, periodontal soft tissue defect, normally positioned flap (NPF), coronally advanced flap (CAF)

CLC Number:

R781.4⁺5

SUN Wentao, DONG Jiachen, SUN Mengjun, LIAO Yue, SONG Zhongchen. Effects of 2 different flap techniques on clinical outcomes after epulis excision[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2025, 45(5): 624-629.

Figures/Tables 6

TrendMD

References 17

1	HOLMSTRUP P, PLEMONS J, MEYLE J. Non-plaque-induced gingival diseases[J]. J Periodontol, 2018, 89(Suppl 1): S28-S45.
2	NADERI N J, ESHGHYAR N, ESFEHANIAN H. Reactive lesions of the oral cavity: a retrospective study on 2 068 cases[J]. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2012, 9(3): 251-255.
3	KUMAR S K S, RAM S, JORGENSEN M G, et al. Multicentric peripheral ossifying fibroma[J]. J Oral Sci, 2006, 48(4): 239-243.
4	LOMELI MARTINEZ S M, CARRILLO CONTRERAS N G, GÓMEZ SANDOVAL J R, et al. Oral pyogenic granuloma: a narrative review[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(23): 16885.
5	RATRE M S, CHAUDHARI P A, KHETARPAL S, et al. Effective management of focal reactive gingival overgrowths by diode laser: a review and report of two cases[J]. Laser Ther, 2019, 28(4): 291-297.
6	ANWAR S K, EDWARD S N, ELSAYED N M. Diode laser versus sclerotherapy: bloodless approaches in the treatment of oral pyogenic granuloma (randomised controlled clinical trial)[J]. Odontology, 2023, 111(2): 511-521.
7	XIE Y F, SHU R, QIAN J L, et al. Esthetic management of mucogingival defects after excision of epulis using laterally positioned flaps[J]. Cell Biochem Biophys, 2015, 71(2): 1005-1010.
8	BERNIMOULIN J P, LÜSCHER B, MÜHLEMANN H R. Coronally repositioned periodontal flap. Clinical evaluation after one year[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 1975, 2(1): 1-13.
9	RAETZKE P B. Covering localized areas of root exposure employing the “envelope” technique[J]. J Periodontol, 1985, 56(7): 397-402.
10	SABRI H, BAROOTCHI S, PADBURY A J, et al. Considerations for selecting root coverage techniques in the anterior mandible[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2024, 44(2): 145-152.
11	ZHAO N, YESIBULATI Y, XIAYIZHATI P, et al. A large-cohort study of 2 971 cases of epulis: focusing on risk factors associated with recurrence[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 229.
12	CHRCANOVIC B R, GOMES C C, GOMEZ R S. Peripheral giant cell granuloma: an updated analysis of 2 824 cases reported in the literature[J]. J Oral Pathol Med, 2018, 47(5): 454-459.
13	刘明宏, 荆进, 韩晓虹. 牙龈瘤微创治疗2例[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2022, 57(4): 415-417.
	LIU M H, JIN J, HAN X H. Minimally invasive treatment of epulis in 2 cases[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatology, 2022, 57(4): 415-417.
14	石雪, 李新月. 牙龈瘤切除后不同术式治疗根面暴露的临床效果评价[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2019, 54(1): 29-34.
	SHI X, LI X Y. Clinical evaluation and comparison of three surgical procedures for treatment of root surface exposure after epulis resection[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatology, 2019, 54(1): 29-34.
15	ZUHR O, AKAKPO D L, HÜRZELER M. Wound closure and wound healing. Suture techniques in contemporary periodontal and implant surgery: interactions, requirements, and practical considerations[J]. Quintessence Int, 2017: 647-660.
16	ZUCCHELLI G, TAVELLI L, MCGUIRE M K, et al. Autogenous soft tissue grafting for periodontal and peri-implant plastic surgical reconstruction[J]. J Periodontol, 2020, 91(1): 9-16.
17	ZUCCHELLI G, DE SANCTIS M. Treatment of multiple recession-type defects in patients with esthetic demands[J]. J Periodontol, 2000, 71(9): 1506-1514.

Item	NPF group (n=32)	CAF group (n=23)	Total (n=55)
Gender/n (%)
Male	12 (37.5)	8 (34.8)	20 (36.4)
Female	20 (62.5)	15 (65.2)	35 (63.6)
Age/year	36.50±9.28	38.65±12.64	37.40±10.76

Item	NPF group (n=32)	CAF group (n=23)	Total (n=55)
Gender/n (%)
Male	12 (37.5)	8 (34.8)	20 (36.4)
Female	20 (62.5)	15 (65.2)	35 (63.6)
Age/year	36.50±9.28	38.65±12.64	37.40±10.76

Item	NPF group (n=32)	CAF group (n=23)	P value
EW/mm	8.31±2.51	10.52±3.77	0.012
EH/mm	8.06±3.93	8.09±2.23	0.979
PW/mm	4.69±2.15	4.61±1.20	0.874
PH/mm	2.25±1.37	3.74±0.62	<0.001

Item	NPF group (n=32)	CAF group (n=23)	P value
EW/mm	8.31±2.51	10.52±3.77	0.012
EH/mm	8.06±3.93	8.09±2.23	0.979
PW/mm	4.69±2.15	4.61±1.20	0.874
PH/mm	2.25±1.37	3.74±0.62	<0.001

Indicator	NPF group (n=32)	CAF group (n=23)	P value
PD/mm
Baseline	2.77±1.52	2.77±2.42	0.986
6 months post-surgery	1.73±0.64	1.68±0.79	0.365
P value	<0.001	<0.001
AL/mm
Baseline	1.86±1.49	1.23±1.18	<0.001
6 months post-surgery	2.27±1.56	1.26±1.18	<0.001
P value	<0.001	0.746
KGW/mm
Baseline	1.81±1.65	2.13±2.58	0.477
6 months post-surgery	2.94±1.74	4.83±1.07	<0.001
P value	0.010	<0.001
VAS	4.63±1.74	8.93±1.02	<0.001