Is there any biomaterial substitute for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification? A network meta-analysis of the appraisal literature

A Novel Prehydrated Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Histological and Clinical Evaluation

It is well known that soft tissue quality and quantity around dental implants is of paramount importance for later peri-implant health. For this purpose, the clinical and histological outcomes of the peri-implant mucosa, following soft tissue augmentation for soft tissue improvement with a novel prehydrated porcine acellular dermal matrix graft (PPADMG) in conjunction with simultaneous implant placement, were evaluated in this case series. Twenty-two patients were included in the study. They underwent a late implant placement protocol combined with PPADMG for soft tissue augmentation. A punch biopsy was taken at the time of uncovery of the submerged healed implant after a mean of 157 days healing time. Supracrestal soft tissue height (STH) was measured at the time of implant placement and uncovery. All sites showed a clinical increase in STH. The histological structure of the biopsies resembled a similar structure as found in the healthy oral mucosa. No unexpected tissue reactions could be found. Within the limits of this clinical and histological study, it may be concluded that STH improvement with this novel porcine-derived acellular dermal matrix, in combination with simultaneous implant placement, is a viable option to create a peri-implant tissue thickness and stability.

Autogenous graft versus collagen matrices for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this review is to compare autogenous soft tissue grafts (connective tissue graft - CTG and free gingival graft-FGG) with different type of matrices (acellular dermal matrix-ADM, xenograft collagen matrix-XCM, volume-stable collagen matrix-VCMX) used to increase peri-implant soft tissues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search on electronic databases was performed to identify randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs and CCTs, respectively) with either parallel or split-mouth design, and treating ≥ 10 patients. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare different matrices. Soft tissue thickness dimensional changes and keratinized width (KMW) changes were the primary outcome measures. The secondary outcomes were to evaluate: a) PROMs; b) volumetric changes; c) surgical operating time; and d) different periodontal measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 16 studies (11 RCTs and 5 CCTs) in the quantitative analysis. A total of N = 573 sites were evaluated for NMA. CTG resulted the best material for increasing peri-implant soft tissue thickness, at 180 and 360 days after surgery. The use of an ADM showed good results for buccal thickness increase, primarily in the first three months after surgery. Vestibuloplasty + FGG resulted in the most effective technique for peri-implant KMW augmentation, after 180 days.

CONCLUSIONS

While CTG demonstrated better performance in all the comparison and FGG showed to be the best graft to increase keratinized mucosa up to 90 days, ADM and VCMX may be used to increase soft tissue horizontal thickness with lower patients' morbidity.

LIMITATIONS

The limits of this NMA are the following: a) limited number of included studies; b) high heterogeneity among them (number of patients, treatment sites, surgical techniques, outcome measures, and follow-ups).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many studies compared the efficacy of autogenous and non-autogenous grafts in terms of gingival thickness, volume, and keratinized width increase. However, there is still not clear overall evidence on this topic. This NMA helps clinicians to choose the right material in different peri-implant soft tissue procedures. Recommendations for future studies are mandatory.

Soft Tissue Substitutes in Periodontal and Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Different extracellular matrix (ECM)-based technologies in periodontal and peri-implant soft tissue augmentation have been proposed in the market. The present review compared the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes (STSs) and autogenous free gingival grafts (FGGs) or connective tissue grafts (CTGs) in mucogingival procedures to increase keratinized tissue (KT) width around teeth and implants.

METHODS

Two independent examiners performed an electronic search on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library based on the following PICOS format: (P) adult patients; (I) soft tissue substitutes and FGGs/CTGs; (C) STSs vs. CTGs; STSs vs. FGGs; STSs vs control; (O) KT width gain; (S) systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials. Studies published before November 2023 were included.

RESULTS

Around teeth, all biomaterials showed superior performance compared to a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone for treating gingival recessions. However, when compared to CTGs, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) yield the most similar outcomes to the gold standard (CTGs), even though in multiple recessions, CTGs continue to be considered the most favorable approach. The use of STSs (acellular matrix or tissue-engineered) in combination with apically positioned flaps (APF) resulted in significantly less gain in KT width compared to that achieved with FGGs and APFs. Around dental implants, free gingival grafts were deemed more effective than soft tissue substitutes in enhancing keratinized mucosa width.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, questions remain about the alternative use of soft tissue substitutes for conventional grafting procedures using free gingival grafts or connective tissue grafts around teeth and implants.

Methodological quality of network meta-analysis in dentistry: a meta-research

This meta-research aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality and risk of bias of network meta-analyses (NMA) in dentistry. Searches for NMA of randomized clinical trials with clinical outcomes in dentistry were performed in databases up to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, selected full texts, and extracted the data. The adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting guideline, the AMSTAR-2 methodological quality tool, and the ROBIS risk of bias tool were assessed in the studies. Correlation between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results was also investigated. Sixty-two NMA studies were included and presented varied methodological quality. According to AMSTAR-2, half of the NMA presented moderate quality (n = 32; 51.6%). The adherence to PRISMA-NMA also varied. Only 36 studies (58.1%) prospectively registered the protocol. Other issues lacking of reporting were data related were data related to the NMA geometry and the assessment of results consistency, and the evaluation of risk of bias across the studies. ROBIS assessment showed a high risk of bias mainly for domains 1 (study eligibility criteria) and 2 (identification and selection of studies). Correlation coefficients between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results showed moderate correlation (rho < 0.6). Overall, NMA studies in dentistry were of moderate quality and at high risk of bias in several domains, especially study selection. Future reviews should be better planned and conducted and have higher compliance with reporting and quality assessment tools.

Minimal invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation at dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome measures

The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. Comprehensive and systematic literature searches were performed until December 2021. A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria (PICO): In patients with dental implants undergoing soft tissue augmentation (P), do soft tissue substitutes (I) compared to autogenous soft tissue graft (SCTG [subepithelial connective tissue graft]) (C) limit the post-operative morbidity and other patient reported-outcomes measures (O). Randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective-, retrospective- and case-series studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible and the results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 29 clinical studies were included. For mucosal thickness gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 14.91 Visual Analog Scale [VAS] units; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.42-23.40; P < .0006) based on a 0-100 VAS scale. Based on a 0-10 VAS scale, a borderline significance of pain reduction was found when soft tissue substitutes were applied (n = 4; WMD = 1.62 VAS units; 95% CI 0.01-3.23; P = .05). For keratinized tissue gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception after keratinized tissue augmentation compared to SCTG based on a 0-100 VAS scale (n = 2; WMD = 21.43 VAS units; 95% CI 12.58-30.28; P < .0001). Based on the 0-10 VAS scale, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain as compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 1.65 VAS units; 95% CI 0.66-2.64; P = .001). Regarding pain medication, soft tissue substitutes required less painkillers (n = 6; WMD = 1.56 tablets; 95% CI 1.22-1.91; P < .00001) after soft tissue augmentation. The surgery time was significantly reduced when soft tissue substitutes were used (n = 5; WMD = 10.9 minutes; 95% CI 4.60-17.19; P < .00001). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, aesthetics, and quality of life (OHIP-14) between soft tissue substitutes and autogenous grafts following soft tissue augmentation at implants sites. Soft tissue substitutes, compared to autogenous grafts, significantly improve PROMs following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. Soft tissue substitutes can reduce pain perception, amounts of painkillers and surgery time while achieving similar levels of patient´s satisfaction as autogenous grafts without impairing the clinical outcomes. The current evidence indicates that they constitute a valid and reliable alternative to minimize the invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites.