A New Matrix for Soft Tissue Management

Santis, Daniele De; Luciano, U; Pancera, P; Castegnaro, Giacomo; Alberti, Christian; Gelpi, F

doi:10.3390/jcm11154486

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Full-guided (FG) implant surgery, which guides the entire surgical procedure, from the drilling sequence to implant placement, offers high accuracy and reliability in the clinical reproduction of the three-dimensional implant positioning of the pre-surgical planning [46]. FG flapless implant surgery also significantly reduces operative time, which in turn reduces postoperative pain [47].…”

Section: Cortical Bone Perforation Is An Important Step In Ensuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Guided Implant Placement and Bone Regeneration in the Aesthetic Area. Implant Therapy–A Case Report

Moataz,

Afif,

Rania

et al. 2023

MJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anterior maxilla is the most likely site to experience dimensional changes as a result of tooth loss due to trauma, periodontal disease, caries, etc. This bone atrophy of the edentulous ridge can present both functional and aesthetic challenges, and often requires preoperative or intraoperative bone augmentation surgery [1]. A wide range of bone augmentation materials have been proposed in the literature, including autogenous bone, xenografts, allografts, and alloplastic materials. However, autogenous bone is still considered the gold standard for bone augmentation [2]. The international consensus emphasizes that the aesthetic and functional success of dental implants depends essentially on the three-dimensional positioning of the implant, regardless of the implant system, bone augmentation materials, or surgical technique used [3]. Digital implantology, particularly guided implant surgery, offers numerous benefits. It simplifies surgical procedures, ensuring precise three-dimensional implant placement and optimizing clinical outcomes. Digital planning allows for accurate diagnosis of the implant site and virtual visualization of the final restoration. It also reduces surgical time and lowers complication rates. These advantages contribute to the steady growth and increasing interest in digital implantology [4]. Guided implantology can generally be classified into dynamic and static surgery. Dynamic surgery involves the use of a computer-assisted navigation system to allow for real-time implant placement. The main advantage of dynamic design is the ability to adjust the planned implant positioning intraoperatively. Although guided surgeries are gaining in popularity, static guides remain the most commonly used method to this day [5].

show abstract

Section: Cortical Bone Perforation Is An Important Step In Ensuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effectiveness of Guided Implant Placement and Bone Regeneration in the Aesthetic Area. Implant Therapy–A Case Report

Moataz,

Afif,

Rania

et al. 2023

MJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Micro‐needling versus acellular dermal matrix in RT1 gingival recession coverage: A randomized clinical trial

Zaaya,

Elbattawy,

Yusri

et al. 2024

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThis randomized trial assessed for the first time the efficacy of coronally advanced flap (CAF) followed by micro‐needling (MN) in contrast to CAF with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) on gingival thickness (GT, primary outcome), keratinized tissue width (KTW), clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), recession depth (RD), recession width (RW), recession reduction (Rec‐Red), complete root coverage (CRC) and percentage of root coverage (all secondary outcomes) in management of RT1 gingival recession in patients with thin gingival phenotype.MethodsA total of 24 patients (n = 24) with a thin gingival phenotype and single RT1 gingival recession in the aesthetic zone were randomly allocated to test‐ (CAF + MN; n = 12) or control group (CAF + ADM; n = 12). All clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months.ResultsBoth groups independently demonstrated significant gain in GT, RW, RD, CAL, PD, Rec‐Red, CRC and percentage of root coverage, with reduced PI and BOP (p < .05) at 3 and 6 months, without intergroup differences (p > .05). At 6 months, KTW gain was significantly higher in CAF + MN (5.08 ± 0.9 mm) than in CAF + ADM‐group (4.25 ± 1.06 mm; p < .05). Stepwise linear regression model with GT as dependent variable showed that base‐line GT was the only statistically significant predictor for GT with a direct correlation between base‐line GT and GT after 6 months.ConclusionCAF followed by MN could represent a promising graft‐less approach for increasing gingival thickness, comparable to CAF with ADM, with superior keratinized tissue width improvement, in the treatment of RT1 recession defects in patients with thin gingival phenotype.

show abstract

Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review

Zangani,

Gualtieri,

Pardo

et al. 2024

Oral Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcome of collagen matrix (CMX) compared with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) in gingival recession coverage (RC) surgery.MethodsReview protocol was registered in PROSPERO. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. Randomized studies comparing CMX versus. SCTG or CMX versus. covering procedures without any filling material, for class I recession treatment were included. Risk of bias assessment and quantitative analysis were performed.ResultsOf 168 records, 11 randomized clinical trials were included. The meta‐analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in terms of %RC (p = 0.37); there was a statistically significant difference in terms of recession reduction (p = 0.02) and keratinized tissue width (p = 0.03) in favor of SCTG cases. CMX showed a statistically significantly better result compared to no grafting, regarding %RC (p = 0.003) and keratinized tissue thickness (p < 0.0001). The duration of the intervention was significantly shorter for CMX than for SCTG (p < 0.0001).ConclusionCMX can be considered a viable material, especially when a ΔKTt increase and a reduction of intervention duration is needed. The indications for the choice, however, may depend on the individual local condition.PROSPERO Registration: Registration in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42024555443

show abstract

A New Matrix for Soft Tissue Management

Cited by 4 publications

References 46 publications

The Effectiveness of Guided Implant Placement and Bone Regeneration in the Aesthetic Area. Implant Therapy–A Case Report

The Effectiveness of Guided Implant Placement and Bone Regeneration in the Aesthetic Area. Implant Therapy–A Case Report

Micro‐needling versus acellular dermal matrix in RT1 gingival recession coverage: A randomized clinical trial

Collagen Matrix Versus Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Recession Coverage: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About