Background/Objectives: Soft tissues are essential for maintaining the function and long-term success of dental implants. In many cases, implant placement necessitates soft tissue augmentation procedures such as free gingival grafts (FGGs) or connective tissue grafts (CTGs) to restore lost gingival architecture. Nevertheless, a significant challenge associated with FGG and CTG is postoperative pain, largely due to morbidity at the palatal donor site. To address this issue, various approaches have been proposed to reduce patient discomfort and promote improved wound healing at the donor site. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of four different methods for protecting the palatal donor site following free gingival graft harvesting. Methods: A total of 76 patients undergoing implant therapy with an indication for free gingival grafting were selected and divided into four groups based on the method used to protect the palatal donor site: an absorbable gelatin sponge secured with sutures (GS); an absorbable gelatin sponge with sutures and cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (GS+CTA); oxidized regenerated cellulose combined with cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive (ORC+CTA); and an absorbable gelatin sponge covered with a flowable resin composite and stabilized with sutures (GS+FRC). The effectiveness of each method was evaluated in terms of postoperative pain, bleeding, and wound healing. Results: Although the differences in pain intensity among the groups were not statistically significant throughout the observation period (p > 0.05), the GS+FRC group consistently exhibited the lowest mean pain scores. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the incidence of secondary bleeding. The highest mean wound healing rate was recorded in the GS+FRC group (75.95 ± 18.75%), whereas the ORC+CTA group demonstrated the lowest rate (43.66 ± 25.74%). Conclusions: The use of an absorbable gelatin sponge covered with a flowable resin composite and secured with sutures, despite the presented limitations, appears to be a promising approach for palatal wound protection. While this group consistently demonstrated the lowest mean pain scores, differences in pain intensity among the groups were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, it achieved the most favorable outcomes in terms of wound epithelialization.
Jankowski et al. (2025) studied this question.