Bevel: Original Research

Evaluation of Free Gingival Grafts as a Treatment for Gingival Involvement of Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: Periodontal Considerations and a Study of Six Cases

Jean Simon, Payne Geneviève, Ghannoum Julien

Abstract

Background: Mucous membrane pemphigoid is a chronic autoimmune blistering disease of unknown aetiology. The attached gingiva in dentulous areas is one of the primary affected sites. Oral mucous membrane pemphigoid is often treated with hygiene measures in association with topical corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive agents. Lesions can be temporarily controlled by medication but there is no definitive cure. Treatment is focused on treating active lesions and alleviating symptoms. Aims and Objectives: To assess free gingival grafts as a novel approach in the treatment of recalcitrant for oral mucous membrane pemphigoid lesions. Materials and Methods: Inflammation was subjectively graded using a visual analog scale preoperatively and three months after the free gingival grafts were performed. Patients were also re-evaluated six months postoperatively. Results: All patients displayed complete, albeit localized, permanent remission of lesions in the treated areas, despite discontinuation of topical treatment. Slight radial improvement around the gingival grafts was noted. Conclusion: Free gingival grafts could be useful in treating refractory gingival lesions due to mucous membrane pemphigoid. These results may help to shed deeper insight on the pathogenesis of this disease and help developing more specific therapies.

 

Keywords: Desquamative Gingivitis; Free Gingival Graft; Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid; Vesicullobullous Disease.

 

Jean Simon, Payne Geneviève, Ghannoum Julien. Evaluation of Free Gingival Grafts as a Treatment for Gingival Involvement of Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: Periodontal Considerations and a Study of Six Cases. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology; 2014:5(2):07-12. ©International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. Published by Publishing Division, Celesta Software Private Limited. All Rights Reserved.

 


Introduction

Mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is a chronic autoimmune blistering disease. The main aetiology of MMP remains unknown. Most patients are above 60 years of age at the time of diagnosis1 and the disease is twice more frequent in women.2 It is characterized by varying degrees of involvement of ocular, oral, genital, oesophageal and laryngeal mucosa, and skin.3,4 Oral lesions are often the first sign of disease and represent one of the most debilitating aspects of this chronic condition.1 Primary pathognomonic signs include desquamative gingivitis and separation of the epithelium from the underlying connective tissue by tangential pressure, known as a positive Nikolsky sign.5 Bullous lesions may lead to large painful ulcerations. The attached gingiva in dentulous areas is typically affected.5-7 The junction of the hard and soft palate is also commonly involved; this area is prone to blistering in the general population, either caused by coughing, sucking or other forms of trauma.8,9 Patients affected with oral lesions are susceptible to gingival bleeding, pain and secondary infections. MMP is rarely fatal but death could result from sepsis or iatrogenic complications.1

 

Histopathologic examination shows a sub-epithelial cleft, and direct immunofluorescence demonstrates a continuous linear band of IgG and C3 antibodies along the basement membrane. Studies have shown antigenic recognition by autoantibodies in the basement membrane zone, more precisely affecting hemidesmosomal anchorage complex proteins that assure epithelial integrity.10,11 The affected antigens are known as laminin-512-17, laminin-615, BP-18013,16-22, BP-23018,19 and β4 integrins.12,21,23-27 The α6 integrins are considered as target antigens when patients exclusively present MMP-associated oral lesions.28 Inflammatory mediators could also be involved in the pathogenesis of this disease. An increase in interleukin (IL) 1, 6, 8, and 10 accompanied by neutrophils, mast cells, macrophages, langerhans cells, and lymphocytes was observed in MMP lesional sites.18,19,23,29

 

Up until now, there is no available cure for this disease. In four small case-controlled studies complete and long-term remission of lesions has been achieved with a combination of aggressive systemic therapy (Cyclophosphamide, Dapsone, Intravenous immunoglobulin’s, Methotrexate, Azathioprine, Mycophenolatemofetil, Doxycycline, Sulfasalazine, Tacrolimus, Tetracycline, Triamcinolone acetonide, and/or Rituximab). Furthermore, three of these studies were performed in the same center and remission periods last no more than 24 months.28 The treatment was focused on preventing blisters, treating active lesions and alleviating symptoms. Spontaneous resolution of the lesions does not occur.30,31 Moreover, untreated patients or non-compliant patients are more prone to develop acute lesions.32 As expected, ulcer formation often compromises diet and oral hygiene. Ocular grafting with buccal mucous membrane has been attempted as a treatment for MMP for patients developing scar lesions such as entropions and symblepharons.33 Although some patients benefited from this technique, many developed postoperative complications most often associated with keratoconjunctivitis sicca. Moreover, only temporary visual improvement was shown after cultivated oral mucosal epithelial sheet transplantation on patients with ocular cicatricial pemphigoid.34

 

In the present study, we attempted to assess free gingival grafts (FGGs) as a novel approach in the treatment of MMP recalcitrant to conventional therapy. This technique has been successfully used to treat gingival lesions caused by other chronic dermatoses, such as lichen planus, although the evidence is only based on case reports.35 In our practice, we have observed that dental extractions locally eradicate MMP gingival lesions. Removing the sulcular epithelium by exodontia may prevent antigenic stimulation by periodontal microorganisms. These observations led us to the working hypothesis that FGGs could thicken gingival epithelium, thus reducing antigenic response to dental plaque.

 

Material and Methods

This split-mouth case-controlled prospective clinical trial was conducted on six patients diagnosed with MMP, as confirmed by histopathology and direct immunofluorescence. The Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Institutional Review Board approved this study. We aimed to assess if FGGs may be used as an alternative therapy for gingival lesions caused by MMP that do not respond to conventional treatment. The latter included a combination of topical and systemic corticosteroids, topical Tacrolimus, Tetracycline / Niacinamide and, whenever medically feasible, the use of systemic immunomodulators such as Azathioprine.

 

Inclusion criteria were listed as follows: patients had to be over 18 years of age and present with gingival lesions due to MMP in dentate areas that do not respond to conventional therapy. Exclusion criteria were as follows: tobacco consumption in the month preceding the gingival graft, bone-targeted intravenous therapy, head and neck radiation therapy, uncontrolled diabetes, cyanoacrylate allergy, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy associated with an International Normalized Ratio greater than 3.0, and concomitant disease of the oral mucosa (e.g. candidiasis). Among our patient database, only six patients were eligible and accepted to participate in this study. Baseline photographs were performed on the first appointment. The intra-oral site to be grafted was randomly selected for each patient. The non-grafted contralateral site was used as an internal control.

 

Procedure: After local anaesthesia at the recipient and donor sites, teeth were lightly scaled prior to grafting. A partial thickness flap was made with a scalpel at the free gingival margin of the recipient site. The flap was displaced apically, redundant tissues were excised, and residual muscle fibers were scraped off in order to ensure graft bed stillness. A graft was taken from the ipsilateral hard palate. Each graft measured 5 mm in width, at least 1.5 mm in thickness, and its length was adapted to the recipient site. Any adipose tissue was removed on the connective tissue side of the graft, which was positioned and secured at the recipient site. Light pressure was applied on the graft for five minutes, thereby forming a thin fibrin clot between the recipient bed and the graft. In addition, few droplets of n-butyl-2 cyanoacrylate (PeriacrylTM, GluStitch Inc., Delta, BC, Canada) were applied to the superior margin. A comparable technique has been used in the past with analogous operative success.36,37 An absorbable gelatin compressed sponge (SurgifoamTM, Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, USA) with n-butyl-2 cyanoacrylate was placed at the donor site as a surgical dressing.

 

Data collection, criteria, and statistical analysis: Topical treatment was discontinued for two weeks after the procedure and prior to the three months post-surgical appointment. Patients had a first postoperative appointment one week after the graft procedure.  A second follow-up was implemented three months after the procedure; multiple photographs of the grafted sites were taken. Gingival erythema was then evaluated by a single-blind evaluator preoperatively, and three months postoperatively according to a visual analog scale (VAS). The latter was graded as follows: 0: absence of erythema, 1: mild erythema, 2: moderate erythema, 3: severe erythema (associated with bleeding, positive Nikolsky sign and/or ulcerative lesions). All patients were subsequently re-evaluated six months postoperatively. Grading was repeated randomly by the single-blind evaluator with different photographic views of the same patients in order to ensure scoring reproducibility. A Wilcoxon paired signed-ranks test was applied to the VAS results and was performed with the R 3.0.2 software.

 

Results

A median difference of 3 (p=0.0313) on the VAS was observed at the FGG recipient site comparing preoperative and postoperative scores. (Figures 1 and 2) A median difference of 1 (p=0.0313) was observed radially around FGGs. There was no difference (median score difference=0) between preoperative and three months postoperative scores on the untreated control side; however, this is not statistically significant. These results confirm the research hypothesis suggesting that FGGs can reduce gingival MMP lesions that do not respond to conventional therapy. Grafted sites still showed no sign of active disease six months after the surgery.The surgery was well tolerated by all patients, and no adverse effects were reported.

 

Discussion

Based on our results, all patients displayed complete and permanent remission of MMP lesions in the treated areas. Furthermore, slight radial improvement around the FGGs was noted in all patients. To our knowledge, FGGs have never been used to treat gingival manifestation of MMP. We can only hypothesize as to how and why FGGs have successfully, albeit focally, eliminated gingival lesions due to MMP. Important clues may be found by examining the clinical behaviour of MMP. Indeed, the latter affects far more frequently the gingiva in dentulous areas.32 Edentulous areas are seldom affected; in fact, in our practice, we have yet to see MMP lesions on edentulous ridges. Therefore, we can either assume that there is a relationship between periodontal tissues (i.e. gingival sulcus, periodontal ligament) and the development of MMP lesions, or we can postulate that dental extractions eliminate the accumulation of dental plaque, thus ending potential antigenic stimulation of the gingiva.

 

Figure 1: Preoperative gingival lesions associated with mucous membrane pemphigoid Photograph of mandibular teeth showing desquamative gingivitis, ulcerations, and gingival bleeding on the attached gingiva. The tooth marked with a “*” is associated with the FGG recipient site.

 

Figure 2:  Three months postoperative control following free gingival grafting photograph showing elimination of lesions at the grafted site, despite the presence of plaque and tartar accumulation. Elsewhere, gingival lesions are otherwise stable. Radial diminishment of inflammation is also observed around the FGG. The tooth marked with a “*” is associated with the FGG recipient site.

 

It has been demonstrated that improving oral hygiene leads to clinical improvement of lesions and symptoms due to MMP. Arduino et al., (2012)38 have demonstrated that periodontal status is worse in MMP patients when compared with healthy controls. Non-surgical periodontal therapy such as scaling, dental prophylaxis and antiseptic mouthwashes improves the clinical presentation of MMP. These oral hygiene measures are successful in reducing clinical gingival inflammation, thereby complementing conventional therapies of oral MMP lesions.38 Such conventional treatments include topical or systemic corticosteroids39, topical40 or systemic immunosuppressive agents, sulfones (dapsone), intravenous immunoglobulins41, rituximab, and tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors.42

 

Among possible mechanisms of action, FGGs may lead to diminishment of bacterial overload, modulation of the diseased epithelium or the epithelial/connective tissue interactions.  Previous studies have shown that gingival connective tissue grafts induce morphologic changes in the overlying epithelium, despite the fact that the latter is not disturbed in such procedures.43 It would be therefore interesting to compare the effectiveness of FGGs and connective tissue grafts in treating gingival lesions due to MMP. Immunologic changes have also been studied in the pathogenesis of MMP. More specifically, higher serum levels of IL-1 were observed in patients with active disease compared with treated candidates.25 These findings may explain why tooth removal and hygiene measures that help decrease inflammatory mediators also lead to an alleviation of MMP gingival lesions.

 

In parallel, Graziano, et al., (2013)29 showed that baseline levels of IL-1β are higher in the gingival crevicular fluid of grafted sites. However, control sites exhibit a more pronounced increase in the levels of IL-1β upon plaque accumulation. Thus, grafted areas develop less inflammation when compared with healthy gingiva, which may be due to a lower increase in IL-1β levels in the treated gingival areas.29 This could explain why grafted areas do not develop any MMP lesions. However, immunology and histology research on gingival graft is lacking. It is not known whether FGGs lead to a modulation in the distribution and/or concentration of etiologic antigens linked to MMP.

 

The present study is limited by the fact that we are unaware of the histopathologic and physiologic changes occurring after a FGG. Such crucial data is unavailable in the literature, despite the overwhelming number of clinical reports of outcome on FGGs in the general population. The small number of recruited patients and the relatively short duration of follow-up represent additional limits to our study.

 

Conclusions

Patients treated with FGGs demonstrate significant and positive responses. FGGs represent a well-tolerated, albeit localized, treatment for refractory gingival lesions due to MMP. We do not advocate the use of gingival grafts as primary treatment for MMP. On the other hand, when all conventional treatment options fail, FGGs may be considered in recalcitrant gingival lesions. We believe that if one can understand the biologic and physiologic mechanisms by which FGGs eliminate gingival manifestations of MMP, one may be able to shed deeper insight on the pathogenesis of this disease and help develop new and more specific therapies. Hopefully, future therapeutic options will focus on prevention and a cure rather than temporary relief.

 

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the staff members of department of stomatology for their support.

 

Author Affiliations

1.Dr.Jean, Simon, DMD, 2.Dr.Payne, Geneviève, DMD, 3.Dr.Ghannoum, Julien E, DMD, FRCD(c), Department of Stomatology, Hospital Notre-Dame (Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

 

References

1.     Foster CS. Cicatricial pemphigoid. Trans Am OphtalmolSoc 1986;84:527-663.

2.     Neville B, Damm D, Allen C, Bouquot J. Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. St. Louis: Elsevier, 2009: P. 771-5.

3.     Thorne JE, Anhalt GJ, Jabs DA. Mucous membrane pemphigoid and pseudopemphigoid. Ophthalmology 2004;111:45-52.

4.     Goldstein AT, Anhalt GJ, Klingman D, Burrows LJ. Mucous membrane pemphigoid of the vulva. ObstetGynecol 2005;105:1188-90.

5.     Scully C, Carrozzo M, Gandolfo S, Puiatti P, Monteil R. Update on mucous membrane pemphigoid: a heterogeneous immune-mediated subepithelial blistering entity. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:56-68.

6.     Chan IS. Mucous membrane pemphigoid. Clin Dermatol 2001;19:703-11.

7.     Agbo-Godeau S, De Lima Soares P, Szpirglas H. Pemphigoïdecicatricielle: prise en charge en stomatologie. Rev StomatolChir Maxillofac 2004;105:206-10.

8.     De Las Heras ME, Moreno R, Núñez M, Gómez Mi, Ledo A. Angina bullosahemorrhagica. J Dermatol 1996;23:507-9.

9.     Oliveira SC, Slot DE, Van Der Weijden GA. What is the cause of palate lesions? A case report. Int JDent Hyg 2013;11:306-9.

10.  Chan LS, Ahmed AR, Anhalt GJ, Bernauer W, Cooper KD, Elder MJ.The first international consensus on mucous membrane pemphigoid: definition, diagnostic criteria, pathogenic factors, medical treatment, and prognostic indicators. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:370-9.

11.  Egan CA, Lazarova Z, Darling TN, Yee C, Yancey KB. Anti-epiligrin cicatricial pemphigoid: clinical findings, immunopathogenesis, and significant associations. Medicine (Baltimore) 2003;82:177-86.

12.  Rashid KA, Gürcan HM, Ahmed AR. Antigen specificity in subsets of mucous membrane pemphigoid. J Invest Dermatol 2006;126:2631-6.

13.  Dainichi T, Takeshita H, Moroi Y, et al. Cicatricial pemphigoid with autoantibodies against the laminin 5 gamma 2 subunit. EurJDermatol 2005;15:189‑93.

14.  LazarovaZ, Hsu R, Briggaman RA, Yancey KB. Fab fragments directed against laminin 5 induce subepidermal blisters in neonatal mice. Clin Immunol 2000;95:26‑32.

15.  McgowanKA, MarinkovichMP. Laminins and human disease. MicroscRes Tech 2000;51:262‑79.

16.  DabelsteenE. Molecular biological aspects of acquired bullous diseases. CriRev Oral Biol Med 1998;9:162‑78.

17.  Darling MR, Daley T. Blistering mucocutaneous diseases of the oral mucosa--a review: part 1. Mucous membrane pemphigoid. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:851‑4.

18.  BholKC, Rojas AI, Khan IU, Ahmed AR. Presence of interleukin 10 in the serum and blister fluid of patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigoid. Cytokine 2000;12:1076‑83.

19.  Elder MJ, Lightman S. The immunological features and pathophysiology of ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Eye (lond) 1994;8:196‑9.

20.  KarpouzisA, Vamvassakis E, Stavrianeas N, Koumantaki-Mathioudaki E, Karpouzi M, Vareltzides A.Ultra structural immunocytochemistry of autoimmune bullous diseases. AustraliaJDermatol 2002;43:113‑9.

21.  CalabresiV, Carrozzo M, Cozzani E, et al. Oral pemphigoid autoantibodies preferentially target bp180 ectodomain. Clin Immunol 2007;122:207-13.

22.  AndreadisD, Lorenzini G, Drakoulakos D, et al. Detection of pemphigus desmoglein 1 and desmoglein 3 autoantibodies and pemphigoid bp180 autoantibodies in saliva and comparison with serum values.  Eur J Oral Sci 2006;114:374-80.

23.  MignognaM, Lanza A, Rossiello L, Ruocco V, Ahmed AR.Comparison of reactivity and epitope recognition between sera from American and Italian patients with oral pemphigoid. ClinExpImmunol 2006;145:28‑35.

24.  Colón JE, Bhol KC, Razzaque MS, Ahmed AR. In vitro organ culture model for mucous membrane pemphigoid. Clin Immunol 2001;98:229‑34.

25.  Kumari S, Bhol KC, Simmons RK, et al. Identification of ocular cicatricial pemphigoid antibody binding site(s) in human beta4 integrin. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:379–85.

26.  Balding SD, Prost C, Diaz LA, et al. Cicatricial pemphigoid autoantibodies react with multiple sites on the bp180 extracellular domain. J Invest Dermatol 1996;106:141–6.

27.  Bernard P, Prost C, Lecerf V, Intrator L, Combemale P, Bedane C. Studies of cicatricial pemphigoid autoantibodies using direct immunoelectron microscopy and immunoblot analysis. J Invest Dermatol 1990;94:630-5.

28.  Di Zenzo G, Carrozzo M, Chan LS. Urban legend series: mucous membrane pemphigoid. Oral Dis 2014;20:35-54.

29.  Graziano A, Cirillo N, Pallotti S, Cricenti L, Romano F, Aimetti M. Unexpected resilience to experimental gingivitis of subepithelial connective tissue grafts in gingival recession defects: a clinical-molecular evaluation. J Periodontal Res 2013 (in press).

30.  Silverman S Jr, Gorsky M, Lozada-Nur F, Liu A. Oral mucous membrane pemphigoid. A study of sixty-five patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1986;61:233-7.

31.  Hardy KM, Perry HO, Pingree GC, Kirby TJ Jr. Benign mucous membrane pemphigoid. Arch dermatol 1971;104:467-75.

32.  Damoulis PD, GagariE. Combined treatment of periodontal disease and benign mucous membrane pemphigoid. Case report with 8 years maintenance. J Periodontol 2000;71:1620-9.

33.  HeiligenhausA, Shore JW, Rubin PA, Foster CS. Long-term results of mucous membrane grafting in ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Implications for patient selection and surgical considerations. Ophthalmology 1993;100:1283-8.

34.  Sotozono C, Inatomi T, Nakamura T, et al. Visual improvement after cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation. Ophtalmology 2013;120:193-200.

35.  Axéll T, Henriksen BM. Treatment of gingival lichen with free palatal grafts. J Oral Pathol Med 2007;36:105-9.

36.  HoexterDL. The sutureless free gingival graft. J Periodontol 1979;50:75-8.

37.  GrisdaleJ. The use of cyanoacrylates in periodontal therapy. J Can Dent Assoc 1998;64:632-3.

38.  Arduino PG, Lopetuso E, Carcieri P, et al. Professional oral hygiene treatment and detailed oral hygiene instructions in patients affected by mucous membrane pemphigoid with specific gingival localization: a pilot study in 12 patients. Int J Dent Hyg 2012;10:138-41.

39.  Foster CS, Ahmed AR. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy for ocular cicatricial pemphigoid: a preliminary study. Ophtalmology 1999;106:2136-43.

40.  Canivares MJ, Smith DI, Conners MS, Hefferman KJ. Successful treatment of mucous membrane pemphigoid with etanercept in 3 patients. Arch Dermatol 2006;142:1457-61.

41.  Carbone M, Carrozzo M, Castellano S, Conrotto D, Broccoletti R, Gandolfo S. Systemic corticosteroid therapy or oral vesiculoerosive diseases. An open trial. Minerva Stomatol 1998;47:479-87.

42.  Lee Hy, Blazek C, Beltraminnelli H, Borradori L. Oral mucous membrane pemphigoid: complete response to tacrolimus. ActaDermVenereol 2011;91:604-5.

43.  Karring T, Ostergaard E, Löe H. Conservation of tissue specificity after heterotopic transplantation of gingiva and alveolar mucosa. J Periodontal Res 1971;6:282-93.

 

Corresponding Author

Dr.Julien Ghannoum,

1560, Sherbrooke East Street,

Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H2L 4M1,

Tel.: 1-514-890-8000 ext 26686,


 

 

 

 

 

Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None Declared.