AimTo evaluate the non‐inferiority of the adjunct of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) to coronally advanced flaps (CAF) for coverage of multiple adjacent recessions and compare superiority in patient‐reported outcomes (PROM).Material and methodsOne hundred and eighty‐seven subjects (92 CMX) with 485 recessions in 14 centres were randomized and followed up for 6 months. Patients filled daily diaries for 15 days to monitor patient‐reported experience. The primary outcome was changed in position of the gingival margin. Multilevel analysis used centre, subject and tooth as levels and baseline parameters as covariates.ResultsAverage baseline recession was 2.5 ± 1.0 mm. The surgery was 15.7 min shorter (95%CI from 11.9 to 19.6, p < .0001) and perceived lighter (11.9 VAS units, 95%CI from 4.6 to 19.1, p = .0014) in CMX subjects. Time to recovery was 1.8 days shorter in CMX. Six‐month root coverage was 1.7 ± 1.1 mm for CMX and 2.1 ± 1.0 mm for CTG (difference of 0.44 mm, 95%CI from 0.25 to 0.63 mm). The upper limit of the confidence interval was over the non‐inferiority margin of 0.25 mm. Odds of complete root coverage were significantly higher for CTG (OR = 4.0, 95% CI 1.8–8.8).ConclusionReplacing CTG with CMX shortens time to recovery and decreases morbidity, but the tested generation of devices is probably inferior to autologous CTG in terms of root coverage. Significant variability in PROMs was observed among centres.

Following tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes an inevitable remodeling process that influences implant therapy of the edentulous area. Socket grafting is a commonly adopted therapy for the preservation of alveolar bone structures in combination or not with immediate implant placement although the biological bases lying behind this treatment modality are not fully understood and often misinterpreted. This review is intended to clarify the literature support to socket grafting in order to provide practitioners with valid tools to make a conscious decision of when and why to recommend this therapy.

Both treatment modalities demonstrated stability over time. Additional use of CTG provided a greater increase in KT. The presence of NCCL negatively affected CRC and REC.

The development of new medical formulations (NMF) for reconstructive therapies has considerably improved the available treatment options for individuals requiring periodontal repair or oral implant rehabilitation. Progress in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine modalities strongly depends on validated pre-clinical research. Preclinical testing has contributed to the recent approval of NMF such as GEM 21S ® and INFUSE ® bone grafts for periodontal and oral regenerative therapies. However, the selection of a suitable preclinical model for evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a NMF remains a challenge. This review is designed to serve as a primer to choose the appropriate pre-clinical models for the evaluation of NMF in situations requiring periodontal or oral reconstruction. Here, we summarize commonly used pre-clinical models and provide examples of screening and functional studies of NMF that can be translated into clinical use.