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

Table 5.

Patient-reported outcome measures on pain level and preference/satisfaction

Study (year)	Group	Pain level				Patient preference/satisfaction
		None (%)	Mild (%)	Moderate (%)	Severe (%)
McGuire & Nunn (2005)^a [11]	STS	13.6	50.0	31.8	4.6	9.91 ± 1.54^b
McGuire & Nunn (2005)^a [11]	FGG	13.6	54.6	27.3	4.6	10.20 ± 1.13^b
		After 3 days (%)		After 7 days (%)
McGuire et al. (2011)^c [13]	STS	70.6		45.9		76.5%
	FGG	62.3		37.7		23.5%
		Authors’ description^d
Harris (2001) [10]	STS	“Higher pain levels in the FGG group from the donor site... These patients tended to take more pain medication and for a longer period of time.”				NR
	FGG
	CTG
McGuire et al. (2008) [12]	STS	“Subject perception of the duration of pain was reduced in the STS sites.”				60%
McGuire et al. (2008) [12]	FGG					20% (no preference 20%)
Nevins et al. (2010) [15]	STS	“Patients reported less discomfort related to the palatal harvest with the DynaMatrix when compared to the autogenous sites.”				NR
Nevins et al. (2010) [15]	FGG					NR
McGuire & Scheyer (2014) [14]	STS	NR				70%
McGuire & Scheyer (2014) [14]	FGG	NR				30%
Nevins et al. (2011) [16]	STS	NR				Authors’ description^d
Nevins et al. (2011) [16]	FGG	NR				“Significant bias toward avoiding palatal harvesting, in favor of the STS group”
Wei et al. (2000) [17]	STS	NR				NR
Wei et al. (2000) [17]	FGG	NR				NR

Italic values indicate significant difference between STS and FGG groups (p < 0.05)

CTG connective tissue graft, FGG free gingival graft, NR not reported, SD standard deviation

^aPain level at 3 months after treatment (=first evaluation time point)

^bMean (±SD) of a specific not clearly defined scale

^cPain at recipient site

^dData and evaluation parameters are not presented