A 5‐year prospective study on the clinical and aesthetic outcomes of alveolar ridge preservation and connective tissue graft at the buccal aspect of single implants

Alveolar Ridge Preservation With Fibro-Gide or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Soft and Hard Tissue Changes

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel biomaterial (FG) for alveolar ridge preservation compared to CTG in terms of soft tissue thickness and bone dimensional changes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted on 30 patients who required extraction of 30 hopeless mandibular posterior teeth. All patients went through atraumatic tooth extraction, and then, they were randomly allocated to either a CTG, an FG, or a spontaneous healing (SH) group (1:1:1). All patients received a dental implant placed 6 months postoperatively. The soft tissue thickness and bone dimensional changes were measured before and 6 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

The study's analysis revealed statistically significant differences in buccal gingival thickness and dimensional bone changes across the three examined groups after 6 months (p < 0.05). The SH group had lower gingival thickness (1.31 ± 0.65 mm) and higher vertical resorption (-1.46 ± 1.67 mm at the buccal aspect) compared with the CTG and FG groups. The CTG and FG groups had similar gingival thickness (2.42 ± 0.70 and 3.00 ± 0.71 mm, respectively) and bone width reduction (+0.86 ± 2.31 and +0.93 ± 2.38 mm, respectively), whereas the CTG group had lower vertical bone loss (-0.30 ± 1.09 mm at the buccal aspect) than the FG group (-0.47 ± 2.30 mm at the buccal aspect).

CONCLUSION

FG and CTG demonstrate equivalent soft tissue thickness and comparable horizontal bone dimension outcomes in ARP.

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.

The bone shielding versus dual-zone concept in treating thin-walled fresh extraction sockets with immediate implant placement: Soft and hard tissue changes. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the ridge alterations and esthetic outcome 1 year after immediate implant placement using the dual-zone (DZ) technique versus the bone shielding concept in patients with intact thin-walled sockets in the esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 26 patients with nonrestorable maxillary teeth in the esthetic zone who were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 13 each) to receive immediate implants using either the bone shielding concept or DZ. Definitive restorations were delivered after 2 months. Pink esthetic scores (PESs), vertical soft tissue alterations, and bucco-palatal ridge dimensional changes were measured and assessed using intra-oral digital scans at baseline and 1 year post-procedure. Labial bone thickness was measured using cone beam computed tomography scans at baseline and after 1 year.

RESULTS

The bone shielding group provided bucco-palatal ridge thickness stability after 1 year (9.43 mm) compared to baseline values (9.82 mm), while DZ showed a significant loss in the bucco-palatal ridge thickness after 1 year (7.83) compared to baseline values (9.49). No significant difference was reported in the baseline bucco-palatal ridge thickness between the two groups (p = 0.6). After 1 year, the bone shielding group demonstrated 0.38 mm ridge shrinkage which was statistically significant (p = 0.0002) compared to 1.67 mm ridge shrinkage in the DZ group. In addition, the average total PES in the bone shielding group was 12.04 versus 10.28 in the DZ group. No significant difference was reported in the mesial papilla length between the DZ and the bone shielding group after 1 year (p > 0.05). However, the midfacial gingival margin (p = 0.026) and distal papilla were significantly higher in the DZ group (p = 0.0025). There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD mm bone gain at the apical level between the two studied groups after 1 year (p = 0.06) showing 0.85 ± 0.23 and 0.64 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. However, the bone shielding concept showed a statistically significant more bone gain mm (p < 0.001) at the (0.56 ± 0.43) and crestal (0.03 ± 0.8) levels after 1 year compared to DZ which revealed 0.18 ± 0.5 and 0.38 ± 0.29 mm bone loss, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The bone shielding concept might offer a reliable alternative for restoring thin-walled sockets by minimizing postextraction ridge dimensional alterations effect following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. Nevertheless, the study suffers from confounding bias since there are two systematic differences between the groups, the barrier membrane type, and the level of bone filling. "This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization."

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05381467.

Do soft tissue augmentation techniques provide stable and favorable peri-implant conditions in the medium and long term? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the available literature on the medium- and long-term effects of soft tissue augmentation (STA) at implant sites and to explore the effects of the different approaches on clinical-, patient-reported, and health-related parameters.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify prospective clinical studies that assessed the medium- and long-term (≥36 months) outcomes following STA, including number of sites maintaining peri-implant health and number of sites developing peri-implant disease, incidence of complications, stability of the clinical, volumetric, and radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis. STA was performed with either a bilaminar- or an apically positioned flap (APF) approach, in combination with autogenous grafts (free gingival graft [FGG] and connective tissue graft [CTG]) or substitutes (acellular dermal matrix [ADM] and xenogeneic cross-linked collagen matrix [CCM]). An overall high survival rate was observed. Most of the augmented implant sites maintained peri-implant health in the medium and long term, with the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis ranging from 0% to 50% and from 0% to 7.14%, respectively. The position of the soft tissue margin following APF + FGG and bilaminar approaches involving CTG or CCM was found to be stable over time. No substantial changes were reported for plaque score/index, bleeding on probing/bleeding index, and probing depth between early time points and following visits. CTG-based STA procedures resulted in a stable or increased dimension of keratinized mucosa width (KMW) and mucosal thickness (MT)/volumetric outcomes over time, when compared with early follow-ups. Most of the included studies described stable marginal bone levels at the grafted implant sites over time. No substantial changes for patient-reported outcomes and professionally assessed esthetic results were reported at different time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants that received STA showed overall high survival rate and relatively low incidence of peri-implantitis in the medium and long term. Augmented sites seem to maintain the level of soft tissue margin and marginal bone over time, while non-augmented implants may exhibit apical shift of the soft tissue margin. The overall favorable early outcomes obtained with STA are maintained in the medium and long term, with an increase in KMW and MT that may be expected over time at CTG-augmented sites.

A Multi-Centre Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Connective Tissue Graft with Collagen Matrix to Increase Buccal Soft Tissue Thickness: A Cone-Beam CT Analysis

(1) Aim: a cross-linked porcine-derived collagen matrix (CMX) has been developed for soft tissue augmentation. Although this grafting material does not require a second surgical site, recent findings have indicated deeper pockets, more marginal bone loss and more midfacial recession in the short term when compared to connective tissue graft (CTG). Hence, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety of CMX based on buccal bone loss over a one-year period. (2) Methods: Patients who were missing a single tooth in the anterior maxilla were included, in whom the failing tooth had been removed at least 3 months prior and who presented a horizontal mucosa defect. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm as assessed on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) to ensure complete embedding of an implant by bone. All patients received a single implant and an immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. All surgeries were performed by means of full thickness mucoperiosteal flap elevation, placing CTG and CMX in contact with the buccal bone wall. Safety was assessed by evaluating the impact of CTG and CMX on buccal bone loss over a one-year period using superimposed CBCT scans. (3) Results: thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48) and 51 (control: 25; test: 26) could be analyzed for buccal bone loss. At 1 mm apical to the implant-abutment interface (IAI), most horizontal resorption was found pointing to 0.44 mm in the control group and 0.59 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.14 mm (95% CI: -0.17-0.46) was not statistically significant (p = 0.366). At 3 mm and 5 mm apical to the IAI, the difference between the groups was 0.18 mm (95% CI: -0.05-0.40; p = 0.128) and 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.24-0.28; p = 0.899), respectively. Vertical buccal bone loss amounted to 1.12 mm in the control group and 1.14 mm in the test group. The difference of 0.02 mm (95% CI: -0.53-0.49) was not statistically significant (p = 0.926). (4) Conclusions: In the short term, soft tissue augmentation with CTG or CMX results in limited buccal bone loss. CMX is a safe alternative to CTG. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact of soft tissue augmentation on buccal bone.

Use of Connective Tissue Graft and Coronally Advanced Flap in Areas of Buccal Contour Concavities for Nonsubmerged Implant Placement

There is a lack of scientific evidence concerning the best timing of soft tissue management around implants, as well as a divergence of topics concerning optimal procedures. The objective of this study is to evaluate the gain in buccal contour and soft tissue stability after a surgical technique combining nonsubmerged implant placement with submarginal connective tissue graft (CTG) and coronally advanced flap (CAF). Seven patients (4 males and 3 females) underwent surgery for transmucosal implant placement in partially edentulous areas showing mild to moderate buccal contour concavities using a technique combining CTG and CAF. The following parameters were evaluated: keratinized tissue height (KTH), soft tissue thickness (STT), and vertical soft tissue level (VSTL) at T0 (before surgery), T1 (6 months after surgery), T2 (12 months after surgery) and T3 (2 years after surgery). After two years, we observed an increase of 78.5% in buccal KTH, 64% in STT, and 24% in VSTL. No implant presented any sign of mucositis or bone loss. Non-submerged implant placement using an "envelope flap design" in addition to CTG and CAF is beneficial.

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.

Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures on tissue thickening around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The first focused question (FQ1) was: What is the efficacy of connective tissue graft (CTG), as compared to the absence of soft tissue grafting procedure, in terms of gain in peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) reported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs)? The second focused question (FQ2) was: What is the efficacy of CTG, as compared to soft tissue substitutes, in terms of gain in peri-implant STT reported by RCTs or CCTs?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A manual and electronic search was performed for each question to identify RCTs and CCTs published up to July 2020. The primary outcome variable was changes in peri-implant STT and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL), clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, changes in the position of peri-implant soft tissues, esthetic outcomes, and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). For primary and secondary outcomes, data reporting mean values and standard deviations for each study were extracted. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences as well as 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight trials were included to answer the first focused question and eight to answer the second one, providing data for 254 and 192 patients, respectively. For the first focused question, a statistically significant difference of 0.64 mm in STT was found in favor of the grafted group (n = 8; 95% CI [0.16; 1.13]; 95% PI [-1.06; 2.35]; p = .01). Moreover, sites treated with CTG exhibited statistically significant less recession than implants without a graft (n = 4; WMD = 0.50 mm; 95% CI [0.19; 0.80]; 95% PI [-0.70; 1.69]; p < .001). For the second focused question, the meta-analysis showed a statistically significant gain of STT in the CTG group when compared to soft tissue substitutes (n = 8; WMD = 0.51 mm; 95% CI [0.28; 0.75]; 95% PI [-0.09; 1.12]; p < .001). Furthermore, the use of CTG resulted in significantly higher pink esthetic score values (n = 3; WMD = 1.02; 95% CI [0.29; 1.74]; 95% PI [-3.67; 5.70]; p = .01) and less recession (n = 2; WMD = 0.50 mm; 95% CI [0.10; 0.89]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p = .014) when compared to soft tissue substitutes. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for any of the following secondary variables: MBL, clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, position of the interproximal tissues, keratinized mucosa or PROMS (p > 0.05), except for medication intake, which was significantly higher when using CTG as compared to soft tissue substitutes (n = 2; WMD = 1.68; 95% CI [1.30; 2.07]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Soft tissue augmentation procedures are efficacious on soft tissue thickening and, in particular, CTG demonstrated a significant STT gain when compared to no graft or soft tissue substitutes.

Clinical evaluation of the buccal aspect around immediate implant using dual zone therapeutic concept versus buccal gap fill to bone level: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Soft tissue esthetics for immediate implant is considered challenging when restoring a tooth in an esthetic zone. This study aimed to evaluate the buccal aspect after immediate implant using the dual-zone therapeutic concept compared to grafting the buccal gap to the bone crest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned into either immediate implant with the dual-zone therapeutic concept (DZ, test group) or with bone grafting till buccal bone crest with immediate temporization (BCG, control group). Pink esthetic score (PES), buccal bone loss (BBL), mid-facial recession (MFR), soft tissue thickness (STT), keratinized tissue width (KTW), post-operative swelling (POS), and patient satisfaction (PS) were evaluated for 1 year.

RESULTS

At 12 months the PES in the test group was 11.36 ± 1.69, and 10.80 ± 1.55 in the control group, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.45). MFR in the DZ and BCG groups was 0.27 ± 0.34 and 0.45 ± 0.44 after 12 months with no statistical significance difference (p = 0.195). The STT assessment showed a statistically significant increase in both groups, however the intergroup comparison was statistically not significant (p = 0.23). The mean KTW in the DZ and BCG groups was 4.55 ± 1.08 and 4.20 ± 0.82 mm, respectively with no statistical significance (p = 0.42). There was no statistical significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups except in question number 10 concerning the post-operative swelling which was higher in the DZ group (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatment modalities are considered reliable methods to achieve good soft tissue esthetics. However, both treatment modalities were not effective in preventing facial bone resorption despite the use of bone graft.

Connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix after immediate implant placement in esthetic area: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The use of connective tissue graft (CTG) with immediate implant placement and provisionalisation have shown promising results. It is not clear if the same outcome could be achieved using porcine-derived collagen matrix (PDCM) as grafting material.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the esthetic and functional outcomes of immediate temporization of immediately placed fully tapered implants combined with bone and soft tissue augmentation, using either a CTG or a PDCM, in fresh extraction sockets of the anterior sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a failing anterior tooth were included in this study. After extraction, they received an immediate implant with simultaneous hard and soft tissue augmentation and immediate provisional restoration. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the group. Soft tissue augmentation in the control group (CTG) consisted of a CTG, whereas PDCM was used in the test group. After 4 months, definitive restorations were delivered, and pink esthetic score (PES) was evaluated at T1, prosthetic delivery, and at 12-month follow-up (T2). In addition, crestal bone change, probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, bleeding on provisional removal, and implant stability quotient were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients received the intended treatment (22 controls and 23 tests) 45 implants totally, with no implant failures at T2. PES mean ± SD after 1 year was noted to be 12.9 ± 1.2 for the CTG group and 12.1 ± 1.3 for the PDCM group (p = 0.507).

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of this trial, both treatment protocols resulted in comparable esthetic outcomes, with results showing PES >12 and stable clinical parameters after 1 year of follow-up.

A 3-year prospective randomized clinical trial of alveolar bone crest response and clinical parameters through 1, 2, and 3 years of clinical function of implants placed 4 months after alveolar ridge preservation using two different allogeneic bone-grafting materials

Purpose

The aim of this study was to longitudinally evaluate changes in alveolar bone crest (ABC) levels and differences in resorption rates (RR) between the tested grafting materials following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) after tooth extraction after 1, 2, and 3 years (T1–T8) of clinical function.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to two different bone allografts (group 1 maxgraft^®, group 2 Puros^®) for ARP. Non-restorable teeth were minimal traumatically extracted. Sockets were augmented with the tested materials and covered with a pericardium membrane. After 4 months of healing, 36 implants were placed and sites were clinically and radiographically monitored in the mesial (ABC-M), the distal (ABC-D, T1–T8), the bucco-lingual (ABC-BL), buccal (ABC-B) and oral (ABC-O) aspect (T1–T4).

Results

Changes in (ABC-M), (ABC-D), (ABC-BL), (ABC-B), and (ABC-O) levels showed statistically highly significant differences between T1 and T2 for both bone allografts (p < 0.001). Changes at the ABC-M and ABC-BL levels between T2 and T3 of group 1 showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Both groups achieved and maintained increased ABC levels without statistically significant differences throughout the monitoring periods of 1–3 years (T6–T8) of clinical function. No failures or adverse events were observed.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this study is within its limitations the first study to directly compare ABC-changes and differences in RR of two different allogeneic grafting materials for a period of 3 years after ARP. It was demonstrated to be, despite significant differences in RR, a successful method of preserving increased ABC levels through 1, 2, and 3 years of clinical function.

Trial registration DRKS00013010, registered 07/30/2018, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch

Peri-implant tissue changes at sites treated with alveolar ridge preservation in the aesthetic zone: Twenty-two months follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To compare tissue changes at implant sites previously treated with two biomaterials for alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in the aesthetic zone, 1 year after restoration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-six participants were treated with ARP using demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) or DBBM +10% of collagen (DBBM-C), both covered with a collagen matrix (CM). Dental implants were placed, and definitive crowns were installed. Silicon impressions were taken before tooth extraction (T0), 2 weeks after crown insertion (T1) and 1 year after restoration (T2). Mid-facial mucosal level change (MLC), soft tissue thickness changes (TT), and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analysed using inter-group comparisons.

RESULTS

Fifty-four participants were included in the analysis. The mid-facial level change between T0-T1 and T1-T2 showed no statistical difference between DBBM and DBBM-C. Between T0 and T1 for soft tissue thickness, DBBM performed significantly better at 3 and 5 mm below the mucosal margin. From T1 to T2, no significant differences between groups were found at any level for soft tissue thickness and MBL.

CONCLUSION

At the aesthetic zone, advanced recession from tooth extraction to crown placement can be expected at sites treated with ARP regardless of biomaterial used. However, after crown insertion, tissue stability can be predicted.

Linear and profilometric changes of the mucosa following soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcomes of soft tissue augmentation, in terms of change in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, at implants sites in the zone of the aesthetic priority.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched (last search on 1 June 2020). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of different materials and timing of grafting in patients undergoing soft tissue augmentation at implant sites in the aesthetic zone with a follow-up of ≥1 year after implant placement. Outcome measures assessed included changes in level and thickness of mid-buccal mucosa, implant survival, peri-implant health and patients' satisfaction.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 2,185 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in vertical mid-buccal soft tissue change (0.34 mm, 95% CI: 0.13-0.56, p = .002) and mid-buccal mucosa thickness (0.66 mm, 95% CI: 0.35-0.97, p < .001) following immediate implant placement in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. Mean difference in mid-buccal mucosa level following delayed implant placement (0.17 mm, 95% CI: 0.01-0.34, p = .042) was also in favour of the use of a graft versus no graft. With regard to mucosa thickness, the use of a graft was not in favour compared with no graft following delayed implant placement (0.22 mm, 95% CI: -0.04-0.47, p = .095). Observed changes remained stable in the medium term.

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue augmentation in the zone of the aesthetic priority results in less recession and a thicker mid-buccal mucosa following immediate implant placement and less recession in mid-buccal mucosa following delayed implant placement compared with no graft.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-month results

AIM

To compare connective tissue graft (CTG) with collagen matrix (CMX) in terms of changes over time in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) when applied at single implant sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal mucosa defect were enrolled in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm and received a single implant and immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX: Geistlich Fibro-Gide®, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness. Primary outcome was increase in BSP at T1 (immediately after operation) and T2 (3 months) based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary parameters included patient-reported clinical and aesthetic outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48). Even though surgeons applied thicker grafts when using CMX, sites treated with CMX demonstrated 0.78 mm (95% CI 0.41-1.14) more shrinkage between T1 and T2 than sites treated with CTG. The final increase in BSP was 1.15 mm (95% CI 0.88-1.43) for CTG and 0.85 mm (95% CI 0.58-1.13) for CMX. The mean difference of 0.30 mm (95% CI -0.01 to 0.61) at T2 in favour of CTG was of borderline significance (p = .054). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of post-operative bleeding (p = .344), pain (p = .331), number of analgesics taken (p = .504), oedema (p = .227), and pink aesthetic score (p = .655). VAS for post-operative haematoma was 6.56 (95% CI 0.54-12.59) lower for CMX, and surgery time could be reduced by 9.03 min (95% CI 7.04-11.03) when applying CMX. However, CMX resulted in significantly more marginal bone loss (0.38 mm; 95% CI 0.15-0.60), deeper pockets (0.30 mm; 95% CI 0.06-0.54), and more mid-facial recession (0.75 mm; 95% CI 0.39-1.12) than CTG.

CONCLUSIONS

CTG remains the gold standard for increasing soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of implants.

The effect of implant-abutment connections on peri-implant bone levels around single implants in the aesthetic zone: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

Objective

To systematically review literature about the effect of different implant‐abutment interface designs on peri‐implant bone level changes, implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa changes around single implants in the anterior maxilla. Reviewing three connection configurations: Platform switched conical (PS‐conical); Platform switched parallel (PS‐parallel); Platform matched parallel (PM‐parallel).

Methods

A detailed search was carried out in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Open Gray and African journals Online (until December 1, 2020) and was restricted to clinical prospective studies of at least 1 year and with at least 10 human participants. A meta regression analysis was carried out primarily on the pooled peri‐implant bone level changes followed by implant loss and mid‐buccal mucosa level change. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and ROBINS‐I. The manuscript complied with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: 225092).

Results

A total of 5513 hits gave 44 eligible articles for the analyses. Bone level change did not differ significantly between the two platform switched connections; their bone loss scores were significantly lower than PM‐connection. The PS‐conical connections have significantly lower implant losses than the PM connection. Mid‐buccal mucosa level change was comparable between the three connection configurations. Moderate to high risk of bias was detected in the included studies.

Conclusions

The performance of PS‐conical and PS‐parallel connection configurations both favored bone loss scores compared to the PM‐parallel connection configuration. All three demonstrated mid‐buccal mucosa changes that were small and did not differ significantly amongst the groups.

Evaluation of the peri-implant tissues in the esthetic zone with prefabricated titanium or zirconia abutments: A randomized controlled clinical trial with a minimum follow-up of 7 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Long-term clinical studies are lacking on the influence of the type of abutment, titanium or zirconia, on peri-implant tissues.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate peri-implant tissues with titanium or zirconia abutments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 26 single-tooth implant-supported prostheses in 14 participants were analyzed. They received either a titanium abutment with a metal-ceramic crown (TAG) or a zirconia abutment with a ceramic crown (ZAG). Data were collected immediately, at 5 months, and at a minimum of 7 years after crown delivery. The success rate, plaque and bleeding indexes, bleeding on probing, white and pink esthetic scores, and the relationships of the gingival phenotype with the pink esthetic score were analyzed. Statistical analyses were conducted with the t test for paired and independent data (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 95.2 ±2.6 months, showing an implant success rate of 96.7%. No statistically significant differences were found between TAG and ZAG among the time intervals evaluated for plaque or bleeding indexes (P>.05). A statistically significant difference was found for peri-implant probing depths in the mid-buccal sites between the groups at all the time intervals evaluated (TAG, P=.008; ZAG, P=.021): TAG showed an increase between 5 months (3.65 ±0.93 mm) and over 7 years (4.47 ±1.32 mm); and ZAG showed a reduction (5 months=5.22 ±1.71 mm; over 7 years=4.25 ±1.28 mm) in values. For the pink (PES) and white esthetic score (WES), ZAG (PES: immediately=6.33 ±1.41; 5 months=7.44 ±1.81; over 7 years=8.25 ±1.03; WES: immediately=7.67 ±1.50; over 7 years=8.38 ±0.74) showed higher mean values than TAG (PES: immediately=5.94 ±2.35; 5 months=6.53 ±2.15; over 7 years=7.44 ±1.81; WES: immediately=7.00 ±1.17; over 7 years=8.35 ±1.27) (P<.05). Statistically significant differences were found for gingival phenotype and for PES in TAG (P=.031), and the participants with thick phenotype showed higher PES in the 3 time intervals studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia abutments exhibited better results than titanium abutments in terms of the peri-implant tissues. Moreover, in those with a thin phenotype, zirconia provided improved gingival esthetics.

Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of immediate implant placement (IIP) compared to implants placed after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in terms of clinical, esthetic, and patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

A manual and electronic search (National Library of Medicine) was performed for controlled clinical trials, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Primary outcome variable was implant survival and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) (change), pink esthetic score (PES), mid-facial mucosal level (change), papilla index score, complications, and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 10 publications were included (7 randomized clinical trials and 3 controlled clinical trials). The results from the meta-analyses showed that survival rate was significantly lower in the IIP group compared to ARP group [RR = 0.33; 95% CI (0.14; 0.78); p = 0.01]. No significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding radiographic MBL, PES scores, or mid-facial mucosal level (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that IIP had lower survival rates and similar esthetic results when compared to ARP.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians should weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each intervention to select the optimal timing of implant placement.

Immediate single-tooth implant placement with simultaneous bone augmentation versus delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation in bony defect sites in the esthetic region: A 5-year randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if an intact buccal bony plate is a prerequisite for immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets. The aim of this 5-year randomized controlled trial was therefore comparison of peri-implant soft and hard tissue parameters, esthetic ratings, and patient-reported satisfaction of immediate implant placement in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm in the esthetic zone, with delayed implant placement after ridge preservation.

METHODS

Patients presenting a failing tooth in the esthetic region and a buccal bony defect of ≥ 5 mm after extraction were randomly assigned to immediate (Immediate group, n = 20) or delayed (Delayed group, n = 20) implant placement. Second-stage surgery and placement of a provisional restoration occurred 3 months after implant placement in both groups, followed by definitive restorations 3 months thereafter. The follow-up was 5 years. Marginal bone level (primary outcome), buccal bone thickness, soft tissue parameters, esthetics, and patient-reported satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean marginal bone level change was -0.71 ± 0.35 mm and -0.54 ± 0.41 mm in respectively the Immediate group and the Delayed group after 5 years (P = 0.202). This difference, and in other variables, was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Marginal bone level changes, buccal bone thickness, clinical outcomes, esthetics, and patients' satisfaction following immediate implant placement, in combination with bone augmentation in post-extraction sockets with buccal bony defects of ≥ 5 mm, were comparable to those following delayed implant placement after ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.

Alveolar ridge preservation in defect sockets in the maxillary aesthetic zone followed by single-tooth bone level tapered implants with immediate provisionalization: a 1-year prospective case series

Background

Clinical studies of single-tooth replacement in compromised bone using bone level tapered implants in the aesthetic zone are scarce.

Aim

To assess clinically, radiographically and aesthetically over 1 year the performance of a bone level tapered implant in the maxillary aesthetic zone in sites after alveolar ridge preservation.

Material and methods

Thirty patients (16 male, 14 female) with a failing tooth and large bone defect after removal received alveolar ridge preservation. After 3 months, implants were placed with immediate provisionalization. Definitive restorations were placed after 3 months. The treatment was evaluated 1 year following the definitive restoration.

Results

All the patients attended the 1-year follow-up. One implant was lost (96.7% implant survival rate). The mean implant stability quotient value was 68.9 ± 8.74 at implant placement. The mean marginal bone level change was minor (− 0.07 ± 0.12 mm). The mean mid-buccal mucosa changed with + 0.01 ± 0.45 mm. The median Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score after 1 year were 6 [4; 7] and 8 [7; 9], respectively. The patients’ mean overall satisfaction (0–100 VAS scale) was 86.6 ± 10.3.

Conclusion

Bone level tapered implants with immediate provisionalization perform well after alveolar ridge preservation in the maxillary aesthetic zone, according to implant stability, clinical, radiographic, aesthetic and patient-centred outcomes.

Trial registration

NTR, NL8755. Registered on 1 January 2016

Volumetric changes at implant sites: A systematic appraisal of traditional methods and optical scanning-based digital technologies

AIM

To evaluate techniques for assessing soft tissue alterations at implant sites and compare the traditionally utilized methods to the newer three-dimensional technologies emerging in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed to identify interventional studies reporting on volumetric changes at implant sites following different treatments.

RESULTS

Seventy-five articles were included the following: 30 used transgingival piercing alone, one utilized calliper, six with ultrasonography, six on cone-beam computed tomography, and 32 utilized optical scanning and digital technologies. Optical scanning-based digital technologies were the only approach that provided 'volumetric changes,' reported as volumetric variation in mm³ , or the mean distance between the surfaces/mean thickness of the reconstructed volume. High variability in the digital analysis and definition of the region of interest was observed. All the other methods reported volume variation as linear dimensional changes at different apico-coronal levels. No studies compared volumetric changes with different approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the emergence of optical scanning-based digital technologies for evaluating volumetric changes, a high degree of variation exists in the executed workflow, which renders the comparison of study results not feasible. Establishment of universal guidelines could allow for volumetric comparisons among different studies and treatments.

Peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification and its impact on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The peri-implant soft tissue phenotype (PSP) encompasses the keratinized mucosa width (KMW), mucosal thickness (MT), and supracrestal tissue height (STH). Numerous approaches to augment soft tissue volume around endosseous dental implants have been investigated. To what extent PSP modification is beneficial for peri-implant health has been subject of debate in the field of implant dentistry. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the evidence regarding the efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures aimed at modifying the PSP and their impact on peri-implant health.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed to identify clinical studies that involved soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and reported findings on KMW, MT, and/or STH changes. The effect of the intervention on peri-implant health was also assessed. Selected articles were classified based on the general type of surgical approach to increase PSP, either bilaminar or an apically positioned flap (APF) technique. A network meta-analysis including only randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on PSP outcomes was conducted to assess and compare different techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 52 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and 23 RCTs were included as part of the network meta-analysis. Sixteen RCTs reported the outcomes of PSP modification therapy with bilaminar techniques, whereas 7 involved the use of APF. The analysis showed that bilaminar techniques in combination with soft tissue grafts (connective tissue graft [CTG], collagen matrix [CM], and acellular dermal matrix [ADM]) resulted in a significant increase in MT compared to non-augmented sites. In particular, CTG and ADM were associated with higher MT gain as compared to CM and non-augmented sites. However, no significant differences in KMW were observed across different bilaminar techniques. PSP modification via a bilaminar approach utilizing either CTG or CM showed beneficial effects on marginal bone level stability. APF-based approaches in combination with free gingival graft (FGG), CTG, CM, or ADM showed a significant KMW gain compared to non-augmented sites. However, compared to APF alone, only FGG exhibited a significantly higher KMW gain. APF with any evaluated soft tissue graft was associated with with reduction of probing depth, soft tissue dehiscence and plaque index compared to non-augmented sites compared to non-augmented sites. The evidence regarding the effect of PSP modification via APF-based approaches on peri-implant marginal bone loss or preservation is inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilaminar approach involving CTG or ADM obtained the highest amount of MT gain, whereas APF in combination with FGG was the most effective technique for increasing KMW. KMW augmentation via APF was associated with a significant reduction in probing depth, soft tissue dehiscence and plaque index, regardless of the soft tissue grafting material employed, whereas bilaminar techniques with CTG or CM showed beneficial effects on marginal bone level stability.

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.

Quantitative evaluation of connective tissue grafts on peri-implant tissue morphology in the esthetic zone: A 1-year prospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

In the treatment of anterior implants, few studies have quantitatively evaluated the effects of connective tissue grafts on labial bone resorption and soft tissue recession.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of connective tissue grafting (CTG) on the peri-implant tissue morphology by quantitatively measuring change over time the tissue surrounding the implant in the anterior esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-six patients who received implants with platform shifting in the anterior esthetic region were included in this follow-up study. Patients were classified as those who received CTG [CTG (+) group] and those who did not [CTG (-) group]. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of the buccal alveolar bone of the implant and its surrounding soft tissues were evaluated using cone-beam computed tomography.

RESULTS

At 1 year after connection of the superstructure, labial soft tissue recession was on average 0.64 mm in the CTG (-) group and 0.09 mm in the CTG (+) group, and this difference was significant (P < .001). Furthermore, mean labial bone resorption was 0.65 mm in the CTG (-) group and 0.13 mm in the CTG (+) group, and also this difference was significant (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, these findings suggest that CTG may be effective in both reducing labial bone resorption around the implant and reducing the recession of the soft tissue.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) with connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a buccopalatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm, received a single implant and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcomes were Pink Esthetic Score (PES) and Mucosal Scarring Index (MSI) assessed after 1 year. Secondary outcomes included PROMs registered during the early stages of healing and after 1 year.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were included per group (control: 11 females, mean age 51; test: nine females, mean age 48). Although there was no significant difference in the PES between the groups (control: 10.11; test: 10.48; p = .577), the MSI was significantly lower in the test (1.10) than in the control group (2.53) (p = .017). Based on descriptive statistics, the latter demonstrated wider scars, more colour mismatch and slightly more suture marks. However, these were not considered disturbing by the patients given similar VAS on soft tissue aesthetics (control: 84; test: 87). Oedema and haematoma were rated twice as high in the control group on at least two postoperative time points, and patients took more painkillers (7.10 vs. 4.86). OHIP-14 decreased in both groups between baseline and 1-year follow-up, indicative of less discomfort in daily life. Differences in MSI and PROMs between the groups may be explained by the need of a vertical releasing incision in order to achieve sufficient access for GBR, periosteal incisions and the use of biomaterials that may induce inflammation.

CONCLUSION

GBR and CTG resulted in favourable aesthetic outcomes as assessed by professionals and patients. However, given additional vertical and periosteal incisions, GBR resulted in more scarring, postoperative discomfort and a higher need for painkillers.

The effectiveness of immediate implant placement for single tooth replacement compared to delayed implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare immediate implant placement (IIP) to delayed single implant placement (DIP, ≥3 months post-extraction) in terms of implant survival (primary outcome), surgical, clinical, aesthetic, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (secondary outcomes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two reviewers independently performed an electronic search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane and a hand search to identify eligible studies up to May 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP to DIP with at least 1 year of follow-up were selected for a qualitative analysis and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search identified 3 RCTs and 5 NRSs out of 2,589 titles providing data on 473 single implants (IIP: 233, DIP: 240) that had been in function between 12 and 96 months. One RCT showed unclear risk of bias, whereas all other studies demonstrated high risk. Meta-analysis showed significantly lower implant survival for IIP (94.9%) as compared to DIP (98.9%) (RR 0.96, 95% CI [0.93; 0.99], p = 0.02). All were early implant failures. A subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated a trend towards lower implant survival for IIP when postoperative antibiotics had not been administered (RR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.86; 1.00], p = 0.07). This was not observed among studies including the administration of postoperative antibiotics (RR: 0.98, 95% CI [0.94; 1.02], p = 0.35). Meta-analyses showed similar probing depth (WMD 0.43 mm, 95% CI [-0.47; 1.33], p = 0.35) and aesthetic outcomes as assessed by the pink aesthetic score (standardized WMD -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46; 0.39], p = 0.88) for IIP and DIP. Data on marginal bone loss were conflicting and highly biased. Soft tissue recession was underreported and available data were highly biased. Patient-reported outcomes were underreported, yet both IIP and DIP seemed well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement demonstrated higher risk for early implant loss than DIP. There is a need for RCTs comparing IIP to DIP with CBCT analyses at different time points and data on midfacial recession with the preoperative status as baseline. In these studies, the need for hard and soft tissue grafting should also be evaluated.

Treatment of peri-implant soft tissue defects: a narrative review

Soft tissue defects around dental implants, such as papilla or volume loss, peri-implant recession and alterations of the ridge color and/or texture, lead to esthetic and functional complaints. Treatments of these defects in implants are more demanding than in teeth because peri-implant tissue exhibits different anatomical and histological characteristics. This narrative review discusses the proposed treatments for soft tissue defects around implants in the current literature. Several clinical and pre-clinical studies addressed methods to augment the quantity of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa. Autogenous grafts performed better than soft tissue substitutes in the treatment of soft tissue defects, but there is no clinical consensus on the more appropriate donor area for connective tissue grafts. Treatment for facial volume loss, alterations on the mucosa color or texture and shallow peri-implant recessions are more predictable than deep recessions and sites that present loss of papilla. Correction of peri-implant soft tissue defects may be challenging, especially in areas that exhibit larger defects and interproximal loss. Therefore, the regeneration of soft and hard tissues during implant treatment is important to prevent the occurrence of these alterations.