Classification of Soft Tissue Grafting Materials Based on Biologic Principles

Yu, Shuangying; Tseng, Shih-Chang; Wang, Hom‐Lay

doi:10.11607/prd.3622

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The greater keratinized tissue width increase in the CTG‐ treated sites compared to ADM (Harris, ) may have affected the long‐term outcomes, as the positive role of keratinized tissue width on the stability of the gingival margin has been proven by other studies (Pini Prato, Franceschi, et al, ; Pini Prato, Magnani, et al, ). In line with other previous studies (Harris, ; Moslemi et al, ), we did not observe a significant change in the KTW in either groups at 6 months or at the 12‐year recall, suggesting that ADM may not have the capability of inducing keratinization of the overlying epithelium, which seems a prerogative of the CTG (Sculean, Gruber, & Bosshardt, ; Yu, Tseng, & Wang, ). It has been demonstrated that having keratinized tissue width ≥ 2 mm at the baseline is a positive predictor for the stability of the gingival margin over time (Pini Prato, Franceschi, et al, ; Pini Prato, Magnani, et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12‐year follow‐up from a randomized clinical trial

Tavelli

Barootchi

Gianfilippo

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) or Tunnel technique (TUN) in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). Material and methods: Nineteen of the original 24 patients contributing to a total number of 33 sites for CAF and 34 for TUN were available for the 12 years follow-up examination. Recession depth, mean root coverage (mRC), keratinized tissue width (KTW), gingival thickness (GT) were evaluated and compared with baseline values and 6-months results. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors related to the stability of the gingival margin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12‐year follow‐up from a randomized clinical trial

Tavelli

Barootchi

Gianfilippo

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems that CTG provide better KTW, although this was not significant ( p = .052) probably due to the limited number of studies included. A possible explanation for the difference in KTW is the lack of cells of the CMX (Yu, Tseng, & Wang, ). However, it is important to note that CMX was found to be completely incorporated into the adjacent host connective tissues in the absence of a significant inflammatory response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

AlSarhan

Jasser

Tarish

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed to understand the efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX) compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGRs). A literature search was performed for published randomized controlled trials in adult patients (≥18 years old) with Multiple Adjacent Miller class I and II gingival recessions (MAGRs). The assessments included recession depth, Recession width, complete root coverage, mean root coverage, probing depth, clinical attachment level, and keratinized tissue width. Pooled data were analyzed using fixed‐ and random‐effects models, and Forest plots were constructed. Heterogeneity within studies was calculated to assess publication bias. Four randomized controlled trials were included based on the eligibility criteria. Although the recession depth, complete root coverage, and mean root coverage were significantly lower with CMX (p = .017 and p = .001, p = .001, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference in the Recession width between CMX and CTG (p = .203). CMX showed significantly lower Probing Depth than CTG (p = .023); however, no significant difference in clinical attachment level (p = .060) and keratinized tissue width (p = .052) was observed between the groups. Owing to the heterogeneity in the included studies, firm conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the noninferiority of CMX compared with CTG. Long‐term studies are therefore needed to conclusively establish the relative efficacy of CMX in MAGR.

show abstract

“…[41][42][43] Among its main advantages are the reduced surgical time and patient morbidity compared with autogenous soft tissue grafts. 45 Furthermore, root coverage procedures may also benefit from the addition of xenogeneic allografts. 45 Furthermore, root coverage procedures may also benefit from the addition of xenogeneic allografts.…”

Section: Bilayered Collagen Matrixmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…41,42 Clinical trials have shown that CM is able to increase the keratinized tissue width, 41,44 but some have questioned this potential because it lacks the cellular component needed for keratinized tissue formation. 45 Furthermore, root coverage procedures may also benefit from the addition of xenogeneic allografts. 46 However, a recent randomized clinical trial did not meet the non-inferiority end point of CM compared with the "gold standard" CTG in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions.…”

Section: Bilayered Collagen Matrixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extracellular matrix‐based scaffolding technologies for periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue regeneration

Tavelli

McGuire

Zucchelli

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

117

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article focuses on the properties and indications of scaffold‐based extracellular matrix (ECM) technologies as alternatives to autogenous soft tissue grafts for periodontal and peri‐implant plastic surgical reconstruction. The different processing methods for the creation of cell‐free constructs resulting in preservation of the extracellular matrices influence the characteristics and behavior of scaffolding biomaterials. The aim of this review is to discuss the properties, clinical application, and limitations of ECM‐based scaffold technologies in periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue augmentation when used as alternatives to autogenous soft tissue grafts.

show abstract

Classification of Soft Tissue Grafting Materials Based on Biologic Principles

Cited by 24 publications

References 11 publications

Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12‐year follow‐up from a randomized clinical trial

Acellular dermal matrix and coronally advanced flap or tunnel technique in the treatment of multiple adjacent gingival recessions. A 12‐year follow‐up from a randomized clinical trial

Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Extracellular matrix‐based scaffolding technologies for periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue regeneration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About