. 2017 Jan 20;21(2):505–518. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-2044-4

Table 4.

Tissue color and texture in STS and FGG groups at final evaluation

Study (year)	Group	Tissue color			Tissue texture
		Less	Equally	More	Less	Equally	More
		Red (%)			Firm (%)
McGuire & Nunn (2005)^a [11]	STS	9.1	90.9	0.0	9.1	90.9	0.0
McGuire & Nunn (2005)^a [11]	FGG	68.2	27.3	4.6	77.3	22.7	0.0
McGuire et al. (2011)^b [13]	STS	2.4	92.9	4.7	0.0	95.3	4.7
McGuire et al. (2011)^b [13]	FGG	72.9	27.1	0.0	45.9	54.1	0.0
		Match to neighboring tissue (%)
McGuire & Scheyer (2014) [14]	STS	87			97
McGuire & Scheyer (2014) [14]	FGG	10			0
		Authors’ description of the STS group^c
Wei et al. (2000) [17]		“Appears similar to the alveolar mucosa”			“Appears similar to the alveolar mucosa”
Harris et al. (2001) [10]		NR			“CTG and AD seemed to produce a more aesthetic result in most cases; however, both produced a result that was as ‘patch like’ in appearance as a FGG”
McGuire et al. (2008) [12]		“Significant better matching”			“Significant better matching”
Nevins et al. (2010) [15]		“Excellent color blend”			“Excellent texture blend”
Nevins et al. (2011) [16]		“Excellent color blend”			“Excellent texture blend”

Italic values indicate significant difference between the test and control groups (p < 0.05)

AD Alloderm®, CTG connective tissue graft, FGG free gingival graft, NR not reported

^aRecorded 12 months after treatment

^bRecorded 6 months after treatment

^cData and evaluation parameters are not presented