Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of different PIKM Augmentation Surgeries
From: Expert consensus on peri-implant keratinized mucosa augmentation at second-stage surgery
Surgery | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|
ARF | - No need for a second surgical site. - Good color-match. - Optimal for posterior maxilla. | - Application restricted by remaining width of KM in the mandible. |
FGG | - Predictable and reliable increase in KM width. - Long-term stability. - Application not limited by remaining width of KM. | - Donor site morbidity. - Color mismatch. - Limited by donor site area. |
SFGG | - Hardly limited by donor site area. - Usable for large-scale augmentations - Good color-match compared to FGG. - Less donor site trauma than FGG. | - Technique sensitive. - Time-consuming. |
Soft Tissue Substitutes | - Avoids donor site complications. - Good color-match compared to FGG. - Usable for large-scale augmentations. - Shorter surgical duration. | - High cost. - Higher contraction rate. |
