Home > Journals > Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology > Past Issues > Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology 2022 April;74(2) > Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology 2022 April;74(2):171-7



Publishing options
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology 2022 April;74(2):171-7

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-606X.21.04960-5


language: English

Bleeding epulis gravidarum: what to evaluate?

Giuseppe G. IORIO 1 , Luigi CARBONE 1, Vera DONADONO 1, Marika Y. ROVETTO 1, Laura SARNO 1, Gabriele SACCONE 1, Laura L. MAZZARELLI 1, Angelo SIRICO 1, Giuseppina ESPOSITO 2, Cira BUONFANTINO 2, Raffaella DI GIROLAMO 3,
Bruno ARDUINO 1, Pietro D’ALESSANDRO 1, Giuseppe M. MARUOTTI 1

1 Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, School of Medicine, Federico II University, Naples, Italy; 2 Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Federico II University, Naples, Italy; 3 Center for Fetal Care and High-Risk Pregnancy, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy

INTRODUCTION: Hormonal changes during pregnancy may induce modifications in oral mucosa. Epulis gravidarum (EG) is an oral disease arising during pregnancy, usually regressing after delivery. A case of EG managed at our department is described and those previously reported in literature are reviewed in order to define EG clinical features for stratifying the risk of complications and the need of surgery during pregnancy as well as which factors should be considered more relevant in EG management.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Sciences, Scopus and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception of each databases until May 2021 to identify clinical studies on management of EG diagnosed during pregnancy. The aim of this review was to identify factors influencing the need and timing of surgical management.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A woman with a triplet pregnancy suffering from EG, complicated by profuse bleeding, required Caesarean section (CS) given the triplet pregnancy and the impending preterm labor. The surgical removal of EG was not performed because it spontaneously regressed without consequences 40 days after delivery. Review analysis indicated that EG clinical management is dependent on types of symptoms and their severity. Multilinear regression analysis showed that operative management strategy was associated with bone loss on X-ray (t=4.23, P=0.003), while EG surgical treatment during pregnancy was associated with pain (t=-2.91, P=0.03). No significant differences were found in management strategy, according to pain (P=0.12), interference with mastication (P=0.98) and speech (P=0.36). A poor oral hygiene was described in 71% of patients as hypothetical trigger.
CONCLUSIONS: EG management strategy depends on bleeding, pain and bone loss on X-ray. A multidisciplinary approach is useful to perform a rapid and appropriate diagnosis and to better evaluate pros and cons of surgery during pregnancy and following management.

KEY WORDS: Pregnancy; Hemorrhage; Gingival diseases; Gingival neoplasms; Hyperplasia

top of page