Clinical and histological outcomes of allogenic amnion–chorion membrane for palatal donor site healing

Abstract

BackgroundThis pilot split‐mouth randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the effectiveness of an allogenic amnion–chorion membrane (ACM) in promoting clinical and histological palatal donor site wound healing to a collagen dressing (CLD).MethodsTwo palatal donor sites (right and left) of 19 participants requiring free gingival graft (FGG) procedures were randomly assigned to receive either ACM (test group) or CLD (control group). Clinical outcomes, including the size of the wound area, the degree of epithelialization, color match, bleeding condition, pain, and sensibility, were measured. Histomorphometric analyses were also performed to compare the effectiveness of the dressing in each group. Outcomes were evaluated 4, 10, 14, 21, 28, 45, and 60 days post‐operatively.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the reduction of wound area size, the degree of epithelialization, color change, pain, sensibility, thickness of the epithelium and keratin layer, number of inflammatory cells, fibroblasts and blood vessels, and density of collagen between ACM and CLD palatal donor sites during all the evaluations.ConclusionsThe effectiveness of ACM in supporting wound healing at the palatal FGG donor site was comparable to that of CLD.Clinical Trial RegistrationThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03713073). The title of the trial is Clinical and Histological Outcomes of Allogenic Amnion Chorion Membrane in the Healing of Free Gingival Graft Donor Site.Plain language summaryThis study looked at how well 2 different treatments help wounds heal after a free gingival graft procedure, which requires taking donor tissue from the palate. Nineteen participants had 2 areas on their palates treated: 1 with an allogenic amnion–chorion membrane (ACM) and the other with a collagen dressing. The study compared the healing process by looking at the size of the wound, the kinetics of the wound healed, the pain experienced, and the tissue's appearance. It also examined the treated sites under a microscope to assess the number of cells involved in the healing process. After evaluating the healing progress at several time points (from 4 to 60 days after surgery), no significant differences between the 2 treatments were found in terms of clinical or microscopic healing outcomes. In conclusion, ACM was found to be as effective as the collagen dressing in promoting healing at the donor site, meaning both treatments can be considered equally viable options for this procedure.