Keywords

Periodontal surgery; Flap design; Minimally invasive techniques; Regenerative flap designs; Clinical outcomes; Post-operative considerations; Emerging techniques

Introduction

Background on periodontal disease and the need for surgical intervention

Periodontal disease, a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the supporting structures of teeth, is a significant public health concern worldwide. It is characterized by the progressive destruction of the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone, ultimately leading to tooth loss if left untreated. The primary etiological factor is the dysbiotic microbial biofilm known as dental plaque, which initiates an inflammatory host response. However, the disease progression and severity are influenced by various risk factors, including smoking, diabetes, genetic predisposition, and poor oral hygiene.

The prevalence of periodontal disease is substantial, affecting a significant portion of the global population. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, severe periodontitis affects approximately 7.8% of the global population aged 15-99 years. In the United States alone, nearly half of adults aged 30 years and older have some form of periodontal disease. The consequences of periodontal disease extend beyond oral health, as it has been associated with various systemic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory diseases, and adverse pregnancy outcomes [1].

The management of periodontal disease involves a comprehensive approach, combining non-surgical and surgical interventions. Non-surgical therapy, which includes Scaling and Root Planing (SRP), is the primary approach for the initial treatment of periodontal disease. However, in cases of advanced periodontal destruction, persistent deep periodontal pockets, or anatomical defects, surgical intervention becomes necessary.

Periodontal surgery aims to provide access for thorough debridement, facilitate regeneration or repair of periodontal tissues, and establish an environment conducive to maintaining long-term periodontal health. Various surgical techniques are employed, including open flap debridement, osseous surgery, regenerative procedures, and mucogingival surgeries. The selection of the appropriate surgical technique is influenced by factors such as the extent and pattern of periodontal destruction, the presence of anatomical defects, and the desired treatment outcomes [2].

Importance of proper flap design in periodontal surgery

The success of periodontal surgery is contingent upon several factors, with flap design being a critical determinant. Flap design refers to the surgical technique employed to gain access to the underlying periodontal tissues, enabling thorough debridement and providing a favorable environment for wound healing and potential regeneration.

Proper flap design is crucial for several reasons:

• Access and visibility: The flap design should provide adequate access and visibility to the surgical site, facilitating thorough debridement and enabling precise treatment of periodontal defects.

• Wound stability and healing: The flap design influences the stability of the surgical site and the subsequent wound healing process. Well-designed flaps promote primary wound closure, minimize trauma to the surrounding tissues, and facilitate optimal healing.

• Blood supply preservation: Appropriate flap design techniques aim to preserve the blood supply to the surgical area, which is essential for wound healing and potential regeneration of periodontal tissues.

• Postoperative morbidity: The flap design can significantly impact postoperative discomfort, swelling, and other potential complications experienced by patients.

• Aesthetic considerations: In areas of high aesthetic demand, such as the anterior maxillary region, flap design plays a crucial role in preserving or enhancing the gingival architecture and soft tissue contours.

Over the years, various flap designs have been developed and employed in periodontal surgery, ranging from conventional fullthickness and partial-thickness flaps to more advanced minimally invasive and regenerative flap techniques. The selection of the appropriate flap design is influenced by factors such as the extent and pattern of periodontal destruction, the presence of anatomical defects, aesthetic considerations, and patient preferences [3].

Objectives and scope of the narrative review

The primary objective of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the various flap design techniques employed in periodontal surgery and to critically evaluate their clinical outcomes. Specifically, the review aims to:

• Describe the different flap design techniques, including conventional and advanced approaches, and their respective indications and contraindications.

• Evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with each flap design technique, including attachment level gain, probing depth reduction, gingival recession, keratinized tissue width, soft tissue esthetics, and patient-reported outcomes.

• Explore the factors influencing the selection of appropriate flap design techniques, such as the extent and severity of periodontal disease, the presence of anatomical defects, aesthetic considerations, and patient preferences.

• Discuss postoperative considerations, including wound healing, suturing techniques, pain management, and patient compliance, as they relate to different flap design approaches.

• Identify limitations and gaps in the current evidence and suggest areas for future research in the field of flap design for periodontal surgery.

Literature Review

Flap design techniques

Flap design is a critical component of periodontal surgery, as it determines the access, visibility, and wound stability for the surgical site. Various flap designs have been developed and employed in periodontal surgery, ranging from conventional techniques to advanced minimally invasive and regenerative approaches [4,5]. The selection of the appropriate flap design depends on factors such as the extent and pattern of periodontal disease, the presence of anatomical defects, aesthetic considerations, and patient preferences.

Conventional flap designs

Full-thickness flap: The full-thickness flap, also known as the mucoperiosteal flap, is a traditional and widely used flap design in periodontal surgery. This technique involves reflecting both the mucosal and periosteal layers, exposing the underlying alveolar bone. The full-thickness flap provides excellent access and visibility to the surgical site, facilitating thorough debridement and the treatment of osseous defects.

However, this approach can lead to increased postoperative discomfort, swelling, and potential risk of compromising the blood supply to the flap, which may impair wound healing. Additionally, the full-thickness flap may result in gingival recession and loss of keratinized tissue, particularly in areas with thin gingival biotypes.

Partial-thickness flap: The partial-thickness flap, also known as the split-thickness or mucosal flap, involves the reflection of only the mucosal layer, leaving the periosteum intact. This technique aims to preserve the blood supply to the flap, potentially enhancing wound healing and minimizing postoperative complications.

Partial-thickness flaps are often recommended for areas with aesthetic concerns, as they may help maintain the gingival architecture and minimize recession. However, this approach may provide limited access and visibility to the surgical site, making it challenging to treat advanced periodontal defects or perform osseous recontouring.

Papilla preservation flap: The papilla preservation flap is a variation of the conventional flap designs that aims to preserve the interdental papilla during surgical procedures. This technique involves creating a semi-lunar incision at the base of the papilla, allowing the reflection of the buccal and lingual flaps while maintaining the integrity of the papilla.

The papilla preservation flap is particularly beneficial in the aesthetic zone, as it helps maintain the interdental soft tissue architecture and minimize the risk of black triangles or interdental tissue loss. However, it may provide limited access to interproximal areas, potentially hindering the treatment of advanced interproximal defects.

Advanced flap designs

Minimally Invasive Surgery Technique (MIST): The Minimally Invasive Surgery Technique (MIST) is a surgical approach that aims to minimize tissue trauma and preserve the blood supply to the surgical site. This technique involves creating a small intramuscular incision and reflecting a minimal mucoperiosteal flap, providing access to the underlying bone and periodontal defects [6].

MIST is often combined with the use of video scopes or surgical microscopes to enhance visualization and access to the surgical site. This approach has been associated with reduced postoperative discomfort, swelling, and improved wound healing compared to conventional flap designs.

Single Flap Approach (SFA): The Single Flap Approach (SFA) is another minimally invasive technique that involves reflecting a single buccal or lingual flap, depending on the location of the periodontal defect. This approach aims to minimize the number of reflected flaps and preserve the interdental soft tissues and blood supply.

The SFA has been found to be effective in the treatment of isolated intrabony defects, particularly in the aesthetic zone, while minimizing postoperative morbidity and promoting wound stability.

• Regenerative flap designs

Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF): The Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) is a regenerative flap design commonly used for the treatment of gingival recessions. This technique involves reflecting a partial-thickness flap, followed by the coronal advancement and positioning of the flap over the exposed root surface.

The CAF has been widely studied and has demonstrated successful root coverage and improvement in clinical attachment levels. It is often combined with various adjunctive treatments, such as connective tissue grafts or enamel matrix derivatives, to enhance root coverage and regeneration.

Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF): The Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF) is a modification of the CAF technique, designed for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. This approach involves creating a semilunar incision extending beyond the recession defects, allowing for the coronal advancement of a wider flap.

The SCRF has been found to be effective in achieving root coverage and improving clinical attachment levels in multiple adjacent recession defects. It is often combined with connective tissue grafts or other regenerative materials to enhance the predictability of root coverage.

Discussion

Clinical outcomes

The clinical outcomes of periodontal surgery are influenced by various factors, including the flap design employed. Evaluating these outcomes is crucial in determining the efficacy and predictability of different flap techniques. The following section discusses the clinical outcomes associated with conventional and advanced flap designs [7].

Conventional flap designs

Attachment level gain: Conventional flap designs, such as fullthickness and partial-thickness flaps, have been extensively studied in the context of attachment level gain. A systematic review by Graziani et al. evaluated the effectiveness of conventional open flap debridement in the treatment of intrabony defects. The authors reported a mean attachment level gain ranging from 2.1 to 3.3 mm after one year of follow-up, with no significant differences between full-thickness and partialthickness flap designs.

Probing depth reduction: Probing depth reduction is another important clinical outcome measure in periodontal surgery. A randomized controlled trial by Crea et al. compared open flap debridement with and without additional osseous decortication in the treatment of intrabony defects. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in probing depth reduction, with no significant differences between the treatment modalities.

Gingival recession: Conventional flap designs, particularly fullthickness flaps, are associated with an increased risk of gingival recession, especially in areas with thin gingival biotypes or compromised bone support. A retrospective study by Bertoldi et al. evaluated the long-term stability of root coverage procedures using subepithelial connective tissue grafts. The authors reported a mean gingival recession of 0.8 mm after 21-30 years of follow-up, highlighting the importance of proper flap design and soft tissue management.

Keratinized tissue width: The preservation of keratinized tissue width is crucial for long-term periodontal health and stability. A systematic review by Thoma et al. investigated the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health. The authors found that conventional flap designs, such as apically positioned flaps and free gingival grafts, were effective in increasing the width of keratinized tissue around dental implants.

Advanced flap designs

Attachment level gain: Advanced flap designs, including minimally invasive and regenerative techniques, have demonstrated promising results in terms of attachment level gain. A randomized controlled trial by Harrel et al. evaluated the use of enamel matrix proteins with minimally invasive surgery. The authors reported a mean attachment level gain of 2.1 mm after six months, comparable to conventional flap designs.

Probing depth reduction: Minimally invasive flap designs have been associated with significant improvements in probing depth reduction. A prospective study by Harrel et al. evaluated the 36- month outcomes of Videoscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery (VMIS). The authors reported a mean probing depth reduction of 2.8 mm, with minimal postoperative morbidity.

Gingival recession: Advanced flap designs, particularly regenerative techniques such as Coronally Advanced Flaps (CAF) and Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flaps (SCRF), have been widely studied for the treatment of gingival recessions. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Tavelli et al. evaluated the efficacy of the tunnel technique for treating localized and multiple gingival recessions. The authors reported a mean root coverage of 87.5% for single recessions and 85.2% for multiple recessions, highlighting the effectiveness of these advanced flap designs.

Keratinized tissue width: Advanced flap designs have also demonstrated promising results in terms of keratinized tissue augmentation. A randomized controlled trial by Kang et al. compared the use of a bio-adhesive material and silk sutures in gingival recession defects. The authors reported a significant increase in the width of keratinized gingiva in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between the materials used.

Soft tissue esthetics: Esthetic outcomes are of particular importance in periodontal surgery, especially in the anterior maxillary region. A systematic review by Stefanini et al. evaluated the esthetic outcomes and patient-centered outcomes in single-tooth implant rehabilitation. The authors found that advanced flap designs, such as minimally invasive techniques and soft tissue augmentation procedures, were associated with improved esthetic outcomes and higher patient satisfaction.

Patient-reported outcomes: Patient-reported outcomes, including postoperative discomfort, pain, and satisfaction, are essential considerations in periodontal surgery. A randomized controlled trial by Mazzotti et al. compared the patient-reported outcomes of root coverage procedures using coronally advanced flaps and connective tissue grafts. The authors reported no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two techniques, suggesting that advanced flap designs can provide comparable patient experiences to conventional approaches.

Factors influencing flap design selection

The selection of an appropriate flap design is a critical decision in periodontal surgery, as it can significantly impact the clinical outcomes and overall success of the treatment. Several factors should be considered when choosing the most suitable flap design for a particular case [8]. These factors include the extent and severity of periodontal disease, the presence of anatomical defects, aesthetic considerations, patient preferences and compliance, and the clinician's experience and skill level.

Extent and severity of periodontal disease: The extent and severity of periodontal disease play a crucial role in determining the appropriate flap design. In cases of localized or mild periodontal disease, minimally invasive flap designs, such as the Minimally Invasive Surgery Technique (MIST) or the Single Flap Approach (SFA), may be preferred. These techniques aim to minimize tissue trauma and preserve the blood supply, potentially enhancing wound healing and reducing postoperative morbidity.

However, in cases of advanced or generalized periodontal disease, where extensive debridement and osseous recontouring are required, conventional flap designs, such as full-thickness or partial-thickness flaps, may be more appropriate. These flap designs provide better access and visibility to the surgical site, facilitating thorough debridement and the treatment of advanced periodontal defects.

Presence of anatomical defects: The presence and extent of anatomical defects, such as intrabony defects or furcation involvements, can influence the choice of flap design. In cases of isolated intrabony defects or furcation involvements, regenerative flap designs, such as the Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) or the Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF), may be preferred. These flap designs, combined with regenerative materials or grafts, have been shown to be effective in promoting periodontal regeneration and improving clinical attachment levels [9].

Additionally, the location and accessibility of the defects should be considered. For example, in the aesthetic zone, flap designs that preserve the interdental papilla, such as the papilla preservation flap or the modified coronally advanced tunnel technique, may be preferred to maintain the soft tissue architecture and minimize the risk of black triangles or interdental tissue loss.

Aesthetic considerations: Aesthetic considerations are particularly important in periodontal surgery, especially in the anterior maxillary region, where maintaining an optimal soft tissue appearance is crucial for patient satisfaction. In such cases, minimally invasive flap designs or regenerative flap techniques that promote soft tissue augmentation and root coverage may be preferred.

For example, the Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) or the Semilunar Coronally Repositioned Flap (SCRF) are commonly used for the treatment of gingival recessions in the aesthetic zone, as they can achieve effective root coverage and improve the soft tissue appearance. Additionally, soft tissue augmentation procedures, such as connective tissue grafts or xenogeneic collagen matrices, can be combined with these flap designs to enhance the aesthetic outcomes.

Patient preferences and compliance: Patient preferences and compliance should also be considered when selecting a flap design. Some patients may prioritize minimizing postoperative discomfort, swelling, and morbidity, while others may place greater emphasis on achieving optimal aesthetic outcomes or long-term stability.

In cases where patient compliance with postoperative care and maintenance is a concern, minimally invasive flap designs or regenerative techniques that promote faster healing and reduce postoperative complications may be preferred. Conversely, for patients willing to accept a longer recovery period or additional surgical interventions in exchange for better aesthetic outcomes, more complex flap designs or soft tissue augmentation procedures may be appropriate.

Clinical experiance and skill level: and skill level in performing various flap designs should also be considered. Some flap techniques, such as minimally invasive surgery or regenerative flap designs, may require advanced surgical skills and specialized training. In such cases, clinicians should carefully evaluate their proficiency and comfort level with these techniques before implementing them in clinical practice.

Alternatively, clinicians with extensive experience in conventional flap designs may opt for well-established techniques, such as full-thickness or partial-thickness flaps, in cases where these approaches are appropriate and can achieve desired clinical outcomes. Continuous education and training in new flap design techniques can help clinicians expand their surgical repertoire and provide patients with a wider range of treatment options.

Various suturing techniques have been proposed, including interrupted, continuous, and sling sutures, with each technique having its advantages and disadvantages. The choice of suturing technique may depend on factors such as the flap design, the extent of the surgical site, and the clinician's preference and experience.

In addition to suturing techniques, the use of appropriate wound dressings and postoperative instructions can contribute to optimal wound healing. Periodontal dressings, such as periodontal packs or surgical dressings, can protect the surgical site, minimize patient discomfort, and promote wound stabilization.

Postoperative pain and discomfort are common concerns for patients undergoing periodontal surgery. Effective pain management is crucial for patient comfort and compliance with postoperative instructions.

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for pain management after periodontal surgery. However, their potential side effects, such as gastric irritation and interference with wound healing, should be considered.

Alternative pain management strategies, such as the use of local anesthetics, corticosteroids, or other adjunctive therapies, may also be considered based on individual patient needs and clinical circumstances.

Clear and comprehensive postoperative instructions are essential for promoting optimal healing and ensuring patient compliance. These instructions should cover aspects such as oral hygiene maintenance, diet modifications, smoking cessation, and any necessary medication or dressing changes.

Patient education and active involvement in the postoperative care process can enhance compliance and improve treatment outcomes. Regular follow-up appointments and reinforcement of postoperative instructions can help address any concerns or issues that may arise during the healing process.

Limitations and future directions

Limitations of current evidence: While the existing literature provides valuable insights into flap design techniques and their clinical outcomes, several limitations should be acknowledged:

• Heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures: Studies often vary in terms of their methodologies, outcome measures, and follow-up periods, making direct comparisons and meta-analyses challenging.

• Long-term follow-up studies: Conducting long-term prospective studies with standardized outcome measures would provide valuable insights into the long-term stability and predictability of different flap designs.

• Patient-reported outcomes: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes, such as postoperative discomfort, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life, would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of different flap designs.

• Comparative effectiveness research: Well-designed comparative studies directly evaluating the effectiveness of different flap designs under similar clinical conditions would aid in the identification of optimal treatment approaches.

• Regenerative approaches: Further research into the integration of flap designs with regenerative materials, growth factors, and stem cell therapies may expand the treatment possibilities and improve clinical outcomes.

• Microsurgical techniques: The use of microsurgical instruments and techniques, such as the Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique (MIST) and the Single Flap Approach (SFA), may offer improved precision, reduced tissue trauma, and enhanced visualization.

• Computer-assisted flap designs: The integration of digital technologies, such as Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM), may allow for the precise planning and execution of flap designs, potentially improving surgical outcomes and reducing operator variability.

• Robotically-assisted surgery: The application of robotic technology in periodontal surgery is an emerging area of research, with potential benefits such as improved precision, enhanced visualization, and reduced fatigue for the clinician.

• Tissue engineering approaches: The development of bioengineered scaffolds and growth factor-based therapies may lead to novel flap design techniques that promote enhanced tissue regeneration and improved clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

Summary of key findings

This narrative review has provided a comprehensive overview of flap design techniques in periodontal surgery, including conventional and advanced approaches. The key findings can be summarized as follows:

• Flap design selection is influenced by various factors, including the extent and severity of periodontal disease, the presence of anatomical defects, aesthetic considerations, patient preferences, and clinician experience.

• Conventional flap designs, such as full-thickness and partial-thickness flaps, offer good access and visibility but may be associated with increased postoperative morbidity and gingival recession.

• Advanced flap designs, including minimally invasive techniques and regenerative approaches like coronally advanced flaps, have demonstrated promising clinical outcomes in terms of attachment level gain, probing depth reduction, and soft tissue augmentation.

• Postoperative considerations, such as wound healing, suturing techniques, pain management, and patient compliance, play a crucial role in the overall success of periodontal surgery, regardless of the flap design employed.

• While existing evidence provides valuable insights, limitations such as heterogeneity in study designs, lack of long-term data, and confounding factors necessitate further research to better understand the clinical implications of different flap designs.

Clinical implications and recommendations Based on the findings of this review, the following clinical implications and recommendations can be made:

• Clinicians should carefully evaluate the individual patient's clinical situation, aesthetic demands, and preferences when selecting the appropriate flap design for periodontal surgery.

• Advanced flap designs, such as minimally invasive techniques and regenerative approaches, may offer advantages in terms of reduced postoperative morbidity, enhanced soft tissue augmentation, and improved patient-reported outcomes.

• Proper wound management, including suturing techniques, dressing application, and postoperative instructions, is crucial for optimal healing and successful clinical outcomes, regardless of the flap design employed.

• Continuous education and training in emerging flap design techniques, such as microsurgical approaches, computerassisted planning, and tissue engineering strategies, may expand the clinician's surgical repertoire and improve treatment outcomes.

Concluding remarks

Flap design selection is a critical aspect of periodontal surgery, with various techniques available to address the diverse clinical scenarios encountered in clinical practice. While conventional flap designs remain valuable tools, advanced minimally invasive and regenerative approaches have demonstrated promising outcomes and may offer advantages in terms of postoperative morbidity, soft tissue augmentation, and patient satisfaction.

As the field of periodontal surgery continues to evolve, further research is needed to address the limitations of current evidence and explore emerging flap design techniques. Multidisciplinary collaborations, incorporating advances in materials science, tissue engineering, and digital technologies, may pave the way for innovative approaches that enhance clinical outcomes and improve overall patient care.

By staying informed about the latest developments in flap design techniques and considering patient-specific factors, clinicians can provide personalized and effective periodontal care, ultimately contributing to improved oral health and overall well-being for their patients.

References

1. Alghamdi F, Alhaddad AJ, Abuzinadah S (2020) Healing of periapical lesions after surgical endodontic retreatment: A systematic review. Cureus 12:e6916

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Aloy-Prósper A, Pellicer-Chover H, Balaguer-Martínez J, Llamas-Monteagudo O, Peñarrocha-Diago M (2020) Patient compliance to postoperative instructions after third molar surgery comparing traditional verbally and written form versus the effect of a postoperative phone call follow-up: A randomized clinical study. J Clin Exp Dent 12:e909–e915

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Aroca S, Molnár B, Windisch P, Gera I, Salvi GE, et al. (2013) Treatment of multiple adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions with a Modified Coronally Advanced Tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 40(7):713-720

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Barden J, Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Moore RA (2004) Pain and analgesic response after third molar extraction and other postsurgical pain. Pain 107:86–90

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Bernabe E, Marcenes W, Hernandez CR, Silva J, Albandar J, et al. (2020) Global, regional, and national levels and trends in burden of oral conditions from 1990 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study. J Dent Res 99:362–373
6. Bertoldi C, Consolo U, Lalla M, Zaffe D, Tanza D, et al. (2024) Long-term stability (21-30 years) of root coverage outcomes using sub-epithelial connective tissue grafts at single or multiple gingival recessions: A longitudinal case series. J Clin Periodontol 51:2-13

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Burkhardt R, Lang NP (2014) Fundamental principles in periodontal plastic surgery and mucosal augmentation: A narrative review. J Clin Periodontol 41:S98–S107

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Burkhardt R, Hämmerle CH, Lang NP (2015) Self-reported pain perception of patients after mucosal graft harvesting in the palatal area. J Clin Periodontol 42:281–287

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Buti J, Baccini M, Nieri M, La Marca M, Pini-Prato GP (2013) Bayesian network meta-analysis of root coverage procedures: Ranking efficacy and identification of best treatment. J Clin Periodontol 40:372-386

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]