Aim:To assess mid-term clinical, radiographic and profilometric outcomes at implant sites, previously grafted with a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).Methods: VCMX or SCTG were randomly applied to single implant sites in 20 patients. Following abutment connection and insertion of final reconstructions (baseline), patients were re-examined at 6 months (6M), at 1 year (FU-1) and at 3 years (FU-3). Measurements included the following: clinical data, radiographic measurement of first bone to implant contact (fBIC), soft tissue thickness and volumetric outcomes. Non-parametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. Results:The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.5 mm (Q1: -0.5; Q3: 1.25) (VCMX) (p = .281) and by 0.8 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 2.5) (SCTG) (p = .047) between BL and FU-3 (intergroup p = .303). The profilometric changes of the buccal soft tissues demonstrated a median decrease between BL and FU-3 of −0.2 mm (Q1: −0.5; Q3: −0.1) (p = .039) for VCMX and a decrease of −0.1 mm (Q1: −0.8; Q3: 0.1) (p = .020) for SCTG, respectively (intergroup p = .596). Peri-implant soft tissues and bone levels remained healthy throughout the entire study period. PROMs did not show any significant differences between the groups nor significant changes over time.

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 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.

Objectives This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of partial pulpotomy performed in permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure. Materials and methods Records of patients undergoing treatment at an undergraduate dental clinic between 2010 and 2019 were screened for partial pulpotomies in teeth with a presumptive diagnosis of normal pulp or reversible pulpitis. The follow-up had to be ≥ 1 year. Patient data were retrieved and analyzed using Mantel-Cox chi square tests and Kaplan–Meier statistics. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Results Partial pulpotomy was performed in 111 cases, of which 64 (58%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. At the time of partial pulpotomy, the mean age was 37.3 (± 13.5) years (age range 18–85). The mean observation period was 3.1 (± 2.0) years. Two early failures (3.1%) and five late failures (7.7%) were recorded. The overall success rate of maintaining pulp vitality was 89.1%, with 98.4% tooth survival. The cumulative pulp survival rates of partial pulpotomy in patients aged < 30 years, between 30 and 40 years, and > 40 years were 100%, 75.5%, and 90.5%, respectively, with no significant difference between the age groups (p = 0.225). At follow-up, narrowing of the pulp canal space and tooth discoloration were observed in 10.9% and 3.1% of cases, respectively. Conclusions Across age groups, partial pulpotomy achieved favorable short and medium-term outcomes in teeth with carious pulp exposure. Clinical relevance Adequate case selection provided, partial pulpotomy is a viable operative approach to treat permanent teeth with deep carious lesions irrespective of patients’ age.