Efficacy of buccal pad fat as a new approach in the treatment of gingival recession: a systematic review

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Objective This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of buccal pad fat (BPF) as an autologous graft in the treatment of gingival recession (GR). Thus, the research question explores if the BPF can serve as a viable alternative to the gold standard connective tissue graft. Materials and methods Only seven studies met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised including the randomized controlled clinical trials, and case series. The inclusion criteria were systemically healthy individuals in the age range (18-65 years old) with Miller's classification of GR either class I, II, III, or IV while exclusion criteria were patients with poor oral hygiene, pregnant and lactating patients, teeth with caries, any prior surgery in the relevant regions, and use of medications. Results The review included 117 patients with 136 GR defects. The age of participants ranges from 20 to 65 years old with the higher percentage of root coverage (%RC) at 6 months in the pedicled BPF group which was 89.30%while the lowest (%RC) at 6 months in the same group was 46.78%. The BPF group's width of keratinized gingiva (WKG) values indicate a notable improvement, suggesting a positive impact on WKG compared to the control group. Conclusions BPF can be considered as a promising graft to augment gingival tissues at different sites in the oral cavity with different Miller's classes of GR providing a ne

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.