Objective: To evaluate the wound healing of recipient and donor sites following keratinized mucosa augmentation (KMA) around implants in reconstructed jaw areas and to compare these outcomes with gingival grafts in native jawbone, so as to provide clinical guidance for postoperative maintenance, and to investigate the impact of clinical experience on the evaluation of KMA postoperative healing through subgroup comparisons. Methods: This study included patients who underwent resection of maxillofacial tumors, fibular or iliac flap reconstruction, and implant placement at Peking University Dental Hospital from October 2020 to April 2023. Three months post-implant placement, the patients were referred for KMA procedures. Clinical photographs of the reconstructed area were taken preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and 3 weeks and 3 months post-surgery. Additionally, photographs of the palatal donor site were obtained preoperatively and 3 weeks later. Wound healing was assessed by four junior and three senior clinicians utilizing the early healing index (EHI), early wound healing score (EHS), and pink esthetic score (PES).And senior clinicians evaluated the healing effect compared with gingival transplantation on natural jawbone using a 10-point scale. Results: A total of 26 patients with jawbone reconstruction were included, with an average age of (34.2±10.2) years, 11 males (42.3%) and 15 females (57.7%). Among them, 13 cases (50.0%) underwent fibula flap reconstruction, and 13 cases (50.0%) underwent iliac flap reconstruction. The average number of implants per patient was 3.2±0.7. In the recipient area, 3 weeks postoperatively, the EHS was 7.0 (4.0, 9.0), with sub-item scores as follows: Clinical signs of re-epithelialization (CSR) 6.0 (3.0, 6.0), clinical signs of haemostasis (CSH) 1.5 (1.0, 2.0), and clinical signs of inflammation (CSI) 1.0 (0.0, 1.0), indicating that the average appearance of the wound in the recipient area was characterized by generally well-approximated wound edges with minimal fibrin lines and mild erythema and swelling. The EHI for the recipient area was 2.0 (1.5, 2.5), suggesting that the incision was mostly closed with some fibrin lines 3 weeks postoperatively. The long-term healing evaluation system, PES, was 2.5 (2.0, 3.0), with sub-scores for color [1.0 (1.0, 1.5)] and texture [1.5 (1.0, 2.0)], which were slightly different from the reference values.In the palatal donor area, 3 weeks postoperatively, the EHI score was lower at 1.3 (1.0, 2.5), while the EHS score was higher at 8.5 (6.0, 10.0), indicating better soft tissue healing in the donor area compared with the recipient area. Among the clinicians with different levels of experience, the assessment of wound healing revealed that except for the CSI sub-item, where the junior group scored higher than the senior group, all other sub-items showed significantly higher scores in the senior group compared with the junior group. In the EHS evaluation system, the CSH sub-item demonstrated no significant differences between the groups with varying levels of experience. Experienced clinicians' evaluation outcomes of healing effect compared with gum graft on natural alveolar bone was 8.5 (7.5, 9.5), showing high consistency [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.892; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.791－0.949], suggesting slightly suboptimal healing results after KMA surgery. Conclusion: The healing process following KMA in the context of jawbone reconstruction is relatively protracted, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive postoperative management. Moreover, clinician experience plays a significant role in the assessment of wound healing outcomes for KMA in maxillofacial reconstruction.