A randomized controlled study comparing guided bone regeneration with connective tissue graft to re-establish buccal convexity: One-year aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes

Rehabilitation Using Implants with Sloped Platform Edge vs. Standard Platform with Guided Bone Regeneration: A Randomized Control Clinical Trial

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the vertical bone loss after using different techniques: sloped implants or standard implants with guided bone regeneration. Patients with tooth gap and horizontal bone deficiency were randomly allocated to the test group (implants with sloped platform-SLP) and control group (standard design implants with guided bone regeneration-GBR). The primary outcome was bone loss (6 months after finishing the prosthetic treatment). Secondary outcomes included the following: patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), post-operative edema, keratinized mucosa width, and pink aesthetic score (PES). The average bone loss at 6 months was 0.23 ± 0.15 mm and 1.03 ± 0.37 mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The SLP group was characterized by lower pain intensity the first 7 days (p < 0.001), lower post-operative edema (p < 0.001), lower consumption of NSAIDs on days 1, 3, 5, and 7 (p = 0.002, <0.001, <0.001, and 0.008), and lower total OHIP-14 (p = 0.047) on day 7. The keratinized mucosa width was 3.7 (3.4-4.0) mm and 2 (1.4-2.0) mm in the SLP and GBR groups, respectively. The preservation of the mesial, distal papillae, and the level of soft tissue correspondence were significantly higher in the SLP group (p = 0.003, 0.038, <0.001). In the SLP group, more natural color and better texture of soft tissues were found (p = 0.048, p = 0.041). The use of implants with a sloped platform resulted in superior outcomes compared to the standard-design implants with GBR.

Profilometric, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of the L-shape technique combined with delayed connective tissue grafting in the maxillary anterior region: A 3-year case series study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the profilometric, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes of peri-implant tissues in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone following guided bone regeneration (GBR) using the L-shape technique combined with delayed connective tissue grafting (CTG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Profilometric and pink esthetic score (PES) measurements were performed at the time of implant surgery with GBR (T0) and at the 1- (T1), 2- (T2), and 3-year (T3) follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes were also assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire. Statistical analysis over 3 years of follow-up assessed changes at time points (T0, T1, T2, and T3) and time periods (T0-T1, T0-T2, and T0-T3) using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients (57.5 ± 12.3 years) were included in this study. The mean profilometric change in peri-implant tissues over the 3-year follow-up period was 3.49 ± 1.11 mm, and the buccal contours were not significantly different between the comparison periods. The PES remained stable, while all OHIP-14 domain scores improved significantly.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous implant placement and GBR using the L-shape technique combined with delayed CTG in the maxillary anterior region provides stable buccal profiles and consistent esthetics and improves patient-reported quality of life over a 3-year period.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrated that GBR using the L-shape technique combined with delayed CTG in the maxillary anterior region improved the buccal profile, esthetics, and patient-reported quality of life.

Treatment of class I Sibert alveolar ridge defects with volume stable collagen matrix. A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

The soft tissue volume and its stability around dental implants are important for the final aesthetic outcome.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 39-year-old female was referred for dental implant placement for her missing tooth. Following attachment of the cover screw VCMX was used to simultaneously augment buccal ridge defect. Patient was seen 2 weeks after surgery for follow up where sutures were removed. After 3 months, patient received her final crown and been on follow up for 9 months where a successful well-functioning restoration with clinically healthy soft tissue and optimal profilometric outcome were maintained.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

This approach is relatively simple, less invasive and time saving as it eliminates the need for another surgical donor site to manage the defect.

CONCLUSIONS

The present report showed that VCMX was effective in soft tissue augmentation at implant sites in aesthetic zone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Within the limits of this study, the positive results suggest that the volume stable collagen matrix (VCMX) may be a reliable option in treatment of siebert class I ridge defects. VCMX was associated with less amount of pain or discomfort and reduced patient morbidity.

Volumetric assessment of volume stable collagen matrix in maxillary single implant site development: A randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The stability of soft tissue volume around dental implants is an important factor for the final esthetic outcome. The main objective of this study was to compare volume stable collagen matrix (VCMX) versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in the augmentation of soft tissue profiles in single implant sites with a class I Siebert ridge defect.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients (14 females and 6 males) were enrolled in the present study. After implant placement and augmentation of the buccal defect by VCMX or CTG, post-operative evaluation of the volumetric changes at the augmented implant site was carried out at 3, 6, and 9 months as primary outcome, clinical and radiographic soft tissue thickness were carried out at baseline and 9-month intervals, visual analog scale (VAS) and oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP14) were recorded 2 weeks after the surgery.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference in soft tissue volume was found between baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively in both groups with the highest value at 9 months (136.33 ± 86.80) (mm3) in VCMX and (186.38 ± 57.52) (mm3) in CTG. Soft tissue thickness was significantly increased in both groups at 9 months in comparison to baseline. However, there was a significantly higher increase in soft tissue thickness at 9 months in CTG (3.87 ± 0.91) than in VCMX (2.94 ± 0.31). Regarding the radiographic soft tissue thickness, there was a statistically significant increase in both groups at 9 months in comparison to baseline. However, there was a statistically higher increase in the radiographic soft tissue thickness at 9 months in CTG (3.08 ± 0.97) than in VCMX (2.37 ± 0.29). VAS showed a statistically lower value in VCMX (0.4 ± 0.7) than CTG (2.8 ± 1.48). The OHIP recorded lower values in the VCMX group than the CTG group with no statistical significance. In addition, there was no difference in the PES between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that CTG and VCMX were both effective in soft tissue augmentation around implants in the esthetic zone. However, CTG proved more efficient in increasing peri-implant soft tissue volume and mucosal thickness around single implants at a 9-month follow-up period. VCMX was associated with less pain or discomfort and reduced patient morbidity, as reflected by the significantly reduced VAS value in the VCMX group.

Association of Connective Tissue Grafts in Immediate Implants: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The increase in soft tissue (ST) around implants can benefit peri-implant health and aesthetic results. The objective was to compare the gingival and esthetic health benefits of immediate implant placement (IIP) with simultaneous or delayed connective tissue graft (CTG) compared to IIP without CTG.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out by two reviewers in Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were considered. Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) that were published between April 2017 and February 2024 were used. Studies that analyzed the performance of a simultaneous or deferred CTG after the placement of an implant in the aesthetic zone, with or without immediate provisionalization, without previous regeneration, with a follow-up of 6 months, and that were performed in humans were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative analysis was performed using data provided by the RCTs. The five RCTs that were selected analyzed a total "n" of 245 subjects who met the inclusion criteria and focused on the subject of the study. In the quantitative analysis, four RCTs were included. The studies evaluated buccal gingiva levels when placing the IIP with and without CTG, obtaining a mean buccal gingiva level difference of 0.09 mm (95% CI: -0.54 to 0.72, p = 0.05), statistically not significant, but with a favorable trend.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CTG associated with the II can maintain the gum level but not increase the volume. CTG is favorable for achieving successful esthetic results when immediate placement of an implant with a provisional prosthesis is planned.

Timing implant provisionalization: Decision-making and systematic workflow

OBJECTIVE

Provisionalization is an important step to achieve esthetic results in implant cases, and many different techniques for provisional restoration fabrication have been described. However, depending on the clinical scenario, the provisionalization strategy will require different approaches and timing. The clinician should modify the provisional restorations efficiently to reduce the number of disconnections from the implant, as repeated disconnections may have biological consequences. This article aims to schematize different scenarios requiring implant provisionalization and propose strategies to help the clinician condition the peri-implant tissues, respecting perio-prosthodontic fundamentals for soft tissue, biological, and esthetic stability.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The clinical outcomes of modern implant therapy aim to achieve results that emulate natural dentition. Different scenarios may require adjunct therapy, including hard- and soft-tissue grafting, which complicates treatment. The provisionalization strategy will vary depending on the initial condition of the tissues, the need for reconstructive procedures, and the timing of implant placement. Selecting the right strategy based on the case type is necessary to reduce treatment time and complications associated with inadequate prosthetic handling of the soft tissues.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Proper emergence profile conditioning through provisional restorations will allow for biologically sound and esthetically pleasing outcomes in implant restorations.

Alveolar ridge changes 1-year after early implant placement, with or without alveolar ridge preservation at single-implant sites in the aesthetic region: A secondary analysis of radiographic and profilometric outcomes from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess both the radiographic and profilometric outcomes of early implant placement with or without alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) (using two different ARP techniques) after 1 year of loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five patients with a failing single tooth in the anterior maxilla were randomly allocated to three groups (1:1:1): (a) ARP using demineralized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (CM), (b) ARP using DBBM-C covered with a palatal graft (PG), and (c) unassisted socket healing (control). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, early implant placement was performed in all patients. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and impressions were taken 8 weeks after tooth extraction (ARP/unassisted healing) prior to implant placement and 1-year post-loading. Radiographic and profilometric outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of the 70 patients available for re-examination at 1-year post-loading, 55 datasets could be assessed (ARP-CM 19; ARP-PG 17; Control 19). The need for additional guided bone regeneration (GBR) at implant placement amounted to 31.6% (ARP-CM), 29.4% (ARP-PG), and 68.4% (unassisted healing). Adjusted models revealed that residual buccal bone height and additional GBR at implant placement significantly influenced the magnitude of the alveolar changes at 1 year (p < 0.05). In patients with ARP (group ARP-CM or ARP-PG) without additional GBR, the presence of bone convexity amounted to 36.0% (9/25) at 1-year post-loading. For patients that received ARP and additional GBR at implant placement, the frequency of bone convexity increased to 72.7% (8/11) (p = 0.042). Regarding profilometric measurements, a tendency toward agreement with radiographic outcomes was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Early implant placement with ARP can attenuate alveolar ridge changes at 1-year post loading by minimizing both radiographic and profilometric alterations. However, early implant placement with simultaneous GBR consistently yields superior radiographic and profilometric outcomes, regardless of whether ARP is performed.

Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration

AIM

To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Evaluation of esthetic outcome of delayed implants with de-epithelialized free gingival graft in thin gingival phenotype with or without immediate temporization: a randomized clinical trial

AIM

The current study investigates the effect of immediate temporization on the pink esthetics of delayed implants in patients with thin gingival phenotype in combination with a De-epithelialized Free Gingival Graft in the maxillary premolar area.

METHODOLOGY

The study population was randomly assigned into two groups. The two groups were treated with delayed implants with simultaneous placement of a de-epithelialized free gingiva graft. The test group was immediately temporized while the control group had no temporization. The pink esthetic score was assessed as the primary outcome. Additional secondary outcomes were assessed such as the keratinized tissue width and the soft tissue thickness.

RESULTS

Twenty implants were placed in the current study, split into 10 implants per group. The results showed that the Pink Esthetic Score of the IT group was 11.88 ± (1.13) and 11.33 ± (1.25) for the CTG group, which showed no statistical difference between the groups after 1 year of follow-up. There was also no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months regarding the keratinized tissue width and the soft tissue thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate and delayed temporizations have no effect on the Pink Esthetics of the delayed implants; however, immediate temporization allowed earlier provisional crown delivery. Soft tissue augmentation of the thin gingival phenotype improved esthetics for both groups. Trial registration Name of the registry: clinicaltrials.gov; trial registration number: NCT03792425. Date of registration: January 3, 2019. URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03792425?term=NCT03792425&draw=2&rank=1.

Soft tissue esthetics around immediately provisionalized delayed implants with and without connective tissue graft: A randomized clinical trial pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the peri-implant soft tissue esthetics following a single, immediately provisionalized, delayed implant with/-out subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The eligible patients were randomized into two groups. Immediate provisionalization was performed with (test group: SCTGG) or without SCTG (control group: NGG). The soft tissue esthetics was assessed by Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI), at 6 and 12 months, following final implant restoration.

RESULTS

The SCTGG, compared to NGG, yielded a 0.2 increased PES at 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI): -1, 1.4) and a 0.2 decreased MSI score (95% CI -0.9, 0.5) with no statistically significant differences in PES and MSI between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue grafting around immediately provisionalized delayed implants could exhibit comparable results to immediate provisionalization alone in terms of peri-implant soft tissue esthetics using PES and MSI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03770975).

Soft tissue augmentation with a volume-stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft at implant sites: Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial post implant loading

BACKGROUND

Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG.

METHODS

Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading.

The peri-implant mucosa color: A systematic appraisal of methods for its assessment and clinical significance

BACKGROUND

Peri-implant mucosa color (PMC) seems to be one of the main parameters affecting the esthetic outcome of implant therapy. However, more emphasis should be given to its assessment and reporting.

PURPOSE

To describe the available evidence on methods to assess and report the color of the peri-implant mucosa (PMC) and the respective clinical relevance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies reporting on PMC.

RESULTS

A total of 121 studies were included. PMC was evaluated at the time of the follow-up visit (chairside) in 45.5% studies. PMC assessment was performed qualitatively, by comparing PMC with adjacent and/or contralateral gingiva (78.6%) or quantitatively, using spectrophotometry (20.7%) or a software on clinical photographs (0.8%). The most performed method to assess PMC was through esthetic indices (76.9%), either at the time of the follow-up visit (chairside) or at later time point using photographs. Quantitative reporting of PMC included averages of points from esthetic indices or color differences to natural gingiva expressed with the CIELAB color system. PMC assessment allowed describing color discrepancies compared to natural gingiva, evaluating color changes over time, and comparing the outcomes of different treatment modalities. PMC assessment through spectrophotometry was additionally utilized to assess the role of mucosal thickness (MT) on PMC.

CONCLUSIONS

Various methods for PMC assessment and reporting were described, including visual assessment, mainly through esthetic indices, and spectrophotometry. PMC evaluation has allowed to demonstrate the factors affecting the color of the peri-implant soft tissue, such as the type of abutment/restoration, MT, and soft tissue augmentation.

The L-shape technique in guided bone regeneration with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone: A step-by-step protocol and a 2-14 year retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the methodology of the "L-shape" technique in guided bone regeneration (GBR) with simultaneous implant placement and report on the clinical, esthetic, and patient satisfaction outcomes up to 14 years of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen patients treated with the "L-shape" technique were included in this retrospective study. The L-shape technique was performed by trimming and placing a soft-type bone block made of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen at the buccal-occlusal aspect of the dental implant. The remaining gaps were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral granules and the augmented area was covered with a collagen membrane. The following parameters were recorded:  probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), keratinized tissue width (KT) and marginal bone level (MBL). Esthetic outcomes were assessed according to the pink esthetic score (PES) and the white esthetic score (WES). Patient satisfaction was evaluated by means of a numerical rating scale (0-10). The stability of each augmented site was assessed by measuring the volumetric changes between baseline (crown delivery) and the respective follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 13 maxillary incisors and one maxillary canine in 14 patients were included. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 ± 3.8 years. PES values amounted to 10.7 ± 3.3 and WES to 8.8 ± 1.4. Patient satisfaction reached 9.4 ± 0.8. Mean PD at implant sites were 2.7 ± 0.7 mm while BOP amounted to 15.0 ± 0.2% and Pl to 5.0 ± 0.0%. Volumetric analyses revealed minimal changes at the augmented sites irrespective of the region of interest. Radiographic MBL remained relatively stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of the present study the L-shape augmentation procedure seems to be a reliable technique when performing GBR with simultaneous implant placement in the esthetic zone. Outcomes encompassed stable clinical and esthetic results accompanied by high levels of patient satisfaction. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm possible benefits of the L-shape technique over traditional approaches.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The L-shape appears to be a simple yet promising technique in GBR with simultaneous implant placement that can easily be translated into clinical practice.

Bone substitutes vs. autogenous bone graft for regeneration of the anterior maxillary alveolar process with horizontal bone resorption: systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to identify the available scientific evidence on bone substitutes (BS) compared to autogenous bone grafts (ABG) for regeneration of horizontal bone resorption in the anterior maxillary alveolar process, aiming at rehabilitation with endosseous implants. This review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (2020) and registered in the database PROSPERO (CRD: 42017070574) . The databases searched were PUBMED/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, SCIENCE DIRECT, WEB OF SCIENCE, and CENTRAL COCHRANE, in the English language. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess the study's quality and risk of bias. 544 papers were found. After the selection process, six studies were selected for review. A total of 182 patients were followed for a period of 6 to 48 months. The mean age of patients was 46.46 years, 152 implants were installed in the anterior region. Two studies achieved a reduced graft and implant failure rate, while the remaining four studies had no losses. It may be concluded that both the use of ABG and some BS are viable alternatives for the rehabilitation with implants in individuals with anterior horizontal bone loss. However, additional RCTs are warranted due to the limited number of papers.

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.

Profilometric, volumetric, and esthetic analysis of guided bone regeneration with L-shaped collagenated bone substitute and connective tissue graft in the maxillary esthetic zone: A case series with 1-year observational study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year stability and maintenance of peri-implant soft and hard tissues after guided bone regeneration (GBR) with L-shaped collagenated bone substitute and subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) in the maxillary anterior region using profilometric, volumetric, and esthetic analyses.

METHODS

Fourteen peri-implant defects were grafted with L-shaped collagenated bone substitute, and 5 months after implant placement with GBR, reentry surgery in combination with CTG was performed in all participants. CBCT scans and STL files were acquired at baseline (after implant surgery, T1), reentry surgery (T2), and 1-year follow-up (T3). The profilometric and volumetric changes of the peri-implant tissues were measured, and the pink esthetic score (PES) was assessed at T3.

RESULTS

One year after GBR and CTG at the buccal aspect of the maxillary esthetic zone, the mean thickness of the hard tissue (HT) decreased (HT0: -0.87 ± 0.67 mm, HT1: -0.74 ± 0.75 mm, HT2: -0.92 ± 0.48 mm, 45-HT: -0.87 ± 0.73 mm) and the corresponding thickness of the soft tissue (ST) increased (ST0: 0.96 ± 1.06 mm, ST1: 0.85 ± 0.95 mm, ST2: 0.38 ± 0.82 mm, 45-ST: 0.12 ± 0.62 mm), and as a result, there was no statistically significant difference in the total tissue thickness between T1 and T3 (p < 0.05). The mean volumetric changes of the peri-implant tissues increased after 1-year of implant surgery (T1-T2: 1.52 ± 0.83 mm, T2-T3: -0.88 ± 1.04 mm, T1-T3: 0.64 ± 0.90 mm), and a statistically significant difference was shown in all compared time periods (p < 0.05). The mean PES score was 8.07 ± 1.54 at T3 (range, 6-10).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this 1-year follow-up study, GBR with an L-shaped collagenated bone substitute and subepithelial CTG in the maxillary esthetic zone was beneficial for stable and maintainable peri-implant hard and soft tissues.

Does simultaneous soft tissue augmentation around immediate or delayed dental implant placement using sub-epithelial connective tissue graft provide better outcomes compared to other treatment options? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The clinical benefits of simultaneous implant placement and soft tissue augmentation using different treatment modalities are unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of simultaneous soft tissue augmentation using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) around immediate or delayed dental implant placement with other treatment modalities on the peri-implant tissue health and esthetic.

METHODS

Up to May 2021, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized control trials with follow-up >3 months, evaluating simultaneous implant placement (immediate or delayed) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG compared with other treatment modalities were included. The predictor variables were SCTG versus no augmentation with/without guided bone regeneration (GBR) or other augmentation techniques (Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). The outcome variables were buccal tissue thickness (BTT), mid-buccal gingival level (MGL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic scores (PES). Cumulative mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. SCTG along with immediate implant placement (IIP) or delayed implant placement (DIP) showed a statistically significant improvement in BTT (Fixed; MD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51; 0.97), MGL (Fixed; MD, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21; 0.80), PES (Fixed; MD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29; 1.29), and less MBL (Fixed; MD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14; -0.08) compared to no graft (P<0.05). A statistically insignificant differences in BTT (Random; MD, 0.62; 95% CI, -0.41; 1.65), MGL (Fixed; MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.23; 0.11), MBL (Fixed; MD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.05; 0.77) and PES (Fixed; MD, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.10; 0.67) was observed when SCTG along with DIP was compared with no augmentation plus GBR. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed when comparing SCTG along with DIP with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) concerning BTT (MD:0.71, P = 0.18) and KMW (MD: 0.6, P = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

There is a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations on whether simultaneous dental implant placement (IIP or DIP) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG is superior to no augmentation or is comparable to the other tissue augmentation materials in improving the quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues. Therefore, further, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and long follow-up times are still needed.

Influence of soft tissue augmentation procedures around dental implants on marginal bone level changes-A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the influence of soft tissue augmentation procedures on marginal bone level changes in partial or fully edentulous patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We identified three relevant PICO questions related to soft tissue augmentation procedures and conducted a systematic search of four major electronic databases for clinical studies in systemically healthy patients receiving at least one dental implant and a minimum follow-up of one year after implant placement. The primary outcome was mean difference in marginal bone levels, and secondary outcomes were clinical and patient-related outcomes such as thickness of peri-implant mucosa, bleeding indices, and Pink Esthetic Score.

RESULTS

We identified 20 publications reporting on 16 relevant comparisons. Studies varied considerably and thus only two meta-analyses could be performed. This systematic review showed that: Soft tissue augmentation either for augmentation of keratinized mucosa or soft tissue volume inconsistently had an effect on marginal bone level changes when compared to no soft tissue augmentation, but consistently improved secondary outcomes. The combination soft and hard tissue augmentation showed no statistically significant difference in terms of marginal bone level changes when compared to hard tissue augmentation alone, but resulted in less marginal soft tissue recession as shown by a meta-analysis. Soft or hard tissue augmentation performed as contour augmentations resulted in comparable marginal bone level changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant soft and hard tissues seem to have a bidirectional relationship: "Bone stands hard, but soft tissue is the guard".

Patient-reported outcome measures following soft-tissue grafting at implant sites: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the available literature on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies that involved soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and reported PROMs, including post-operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetics and satisfactions.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Autogenous grafts (free gingival graft and connective tissue graft), acellular dermal matrix and xenogeneic collagen matrix were utilized, either with a bilaminar- or an apically positioned flap approach. PROMs reported in the literature included perceived hardship of the procedure and pain during the surgery, post-operative morbidity, painkillers intake, number of days with discomfort, satisfaction, aesthetic evaluation, quality of life and willingness to undergo the treatment again. Most of the included studies showed similar PROMs between autogenous grafts and substitutes, in terms of post-operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetic assessment and satisfaction. Nevertheless, a trend towards lower post-operative discomfort was observed for graft substitutes. High scores for patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were observed in all the interventions compared to non-grafted sites.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs represent a crucial endpoint of clinical studies evaluating the outcomes of soft tissue grafts at implant sites. Most of the studies did not find significant differences in terms of patient morbidity and painkillers between autogenous grafts and substitutes. Soft tissue grafting can enhance patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation compared to non-grafted sites.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

WITHDRAWN: Consensus Report of Working Group 2: Soft Tissue Management

Objectives

The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.

Materials and methods

Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.

Results

The four reviews predominantly revealed:

Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority.

Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased.

A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes.

PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.

Conclusions

Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.

A 3-Year Prospective Study on a Porcine-Derived Acellular Collagen Matrix to Re-Establish Convexity at the Buccal Aspect of Single Implants in the Molar Area: A Volumetric Analysis

Background: Xenogeneic soft tissue substitutes are currently being investigated as an alternative to subepithelial connective tissue grafts (CTG) with the intention to avoid postoperative morbidity associated with autologous grafting. The aim of the present study was to volumetrically evaluate the effectiveness and mid-long-term stability of a porcine-derived collagen matrix (PDCM) (Mucoderm^®, Botiss gmbh, Berlin, Germany) in increasing soft tissue volume at the buccal aspect of molar implant sites. Methods: Periodontally healthy non-smoking patients with a single tooth gap in the molar area were selected for a prospective case series. All sites had a bucco-oral bone dimension of at least 8 mm and demonstrated a horizontal alveolar defect. A wide diameter implant was placed under the elevated buccal flap and a PDCM was applied. The primary outcome was the linear increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) within a well-defined area of interest. This was performed with designated software (SMOP; Swissmeda AG, Zurich, Switzerland) on the basis of superimposed digitalized study casts taken before surgery (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), at three months (T2), one year (T3) and three years (T4). Secondary outcomes were alveolar process deficiency and clinical parameters. Results: Fourteen out of 15 treated patients attended the three-year re-assessment (four females; mean age 51.4 years). Mean linear increase in BSP at T1 was 1.53 mm (p = 0.001). The PDCM showed substantial resorption at T2 (1.02 mm or 66.7%) (p = 0.001). Thereafter, a 0.66 mm volume gain was observed (p = 0.030), possibly due to the installation of a permanent crown displacing the soft tissues to the buccal aspect. This resulted in a linear increase in BSP of 1.17 mm (76.5%) at T4. Alveolar process deficiency significantly reduced over time (p = 0.004). However, 50% of patients still demonstrated a slight (6/14) or obvious (1/14) alveolar process deficiency at study termination. Implants demonstrated healthy clinical conditions. Conclusions: The PDCM demonstrated marked resorption during the early stages of healing. Due to the matrix thickening the tissues, and the permanent crown displacing the tissues, 76.5% of the initial increase in BSP could be maintained over a three-year period. Half of the patients failed to show perfect soft tissue convexity at the buccal aspect.