Gingiva thickening with a porcine collagen matrix in a preclinical dog model: Histological outcomes

Abstract

Aim To compare 10‐month histological and immunohistological outcomes after soft tissue thickening around teeth with a porcine collagen matrix (CM) versus a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Material and Methods In eight beagle dogs, soft tissue thickening of the buccal gingiva of upper canines was performed with the SCTG or the CM. Connective tissue thickness (CTT) was histomorphometrically measured in the augmented regions. The augmented connective tissues were also histologically characterized and the collagen I and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expressions immunohistologically quantified. Results CTT significantly differed between groups (SCTG: 1.32 mm ± 0.44 mm; CM: 1.06 mm ± 0.27 mm; p = .008). Descriptive histological analyses revealed mature connective tissue that did not differ between groups. Immunohistological quantification of collagen I and VEGF expressions in the connective tissue also revealed no significant inter‐group differences (collagen I: SCTG, 32.64% ± 7.09% vs. CM, 30.57% ± 7.83%; VEGF: SCTG, 39.06% ± 7.27% vs. CM, 37.15% ± 9.80%). Conclusion SCTG is superior to CM with regard to CTT in this experimental model. The CM and the SCTG lead to comparable connective tissue quality ten months after connective tissue thickening.

Current Insight of Collagen Biomatrix for Gingival Recession: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review

“…Hence, 100% of the articles analysed in this study support the statement that Col can be used for gingival healing [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. However, 13% of the researchers emphasise that Col has less potential for GR healing compared with SCTG [ 14 , 18 ]. Two studies in this review analysed the physicochemical properties of the Col-based scaffold and the effect of the scaffold in GR [ 11 , 12 ].…”

“…In contrast, direct bonding of CT to the periosteum and with a matured Col fibre was observed in both groups. There was no significant difference seen for a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and Col-I expression in both groups [ 14 ]. These findings showed that SCTG outranges Col matrix as the current approved gold standard treatment for GR.…”

“…In order to accommodate this problem from worsening, recent advancement in biomaterials is considerable as it has high biocompatible properties to human nature. Many studies have used Col-based scaffolds to study its effects in gingival healing using in vitro models [ 11 , 12 ], in vivo models [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], and clinical trials [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ].…”

“…Col is also the main component in the skin, bones, teeth, cartilage, tendons, and ligaments owing to the tensile strength. Being the main component in the periodontal ligament (80%), the functions of Col are to maintain the structure and the mechanical strength [ 28 , 36 ], besides acting as a protective barrier to prevent the absorption of pathogens and toxins [ 14 ]. Col is synthesised twofold lower in the gingival tissue compared with the skin [ 37 ].…”

Coronally advanced flap with connective tissue graft or xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix in the treatment of multiple gingival recessions: A split‐mouth randomized clinical trial

“…Keratinized tissue gain was attributed to the natural tendency of the mucogingival junction to regain its original, genetically determined position . The change can also be related with xenogeneic CTG substitutes, which replaced the host tissues with the desired histologic and functional characteristics and lead to augmentation in both the width and the thickness of keratinized band …”