Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen‐based matrices: a volumetric analysis

Abstract

Thoma DS, Jung RE, Schneider D, Cochran DL, Ender A, Jones AA, Görlach C, Uebersax L, Graf‐Hausner U, Hämmerle CHF. Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen‐based matrices: a volumetric analysis. J Clin Peridontol 2010; 37: 659–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01581.x. Abstract Objectives: The aim was to test whether or not soft tissue augmentation with a newly developed collagen matrix (CM) leads to volume gain in chronic ridge defects similar to those obtained by an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Material and Methods: In six dogs, soft tissue volume augmentation was performed by randomly allocating three treatment modalities to chronic ridge defects (CM, SCTG, sham‐operated control). Impressions were taken before augmentation (baseline), at 28, and 84 days. The obtained casts were optically scanned and the images were digitally analysed. A defined region of interest was measured in all sites and the volume differences between the time points were calculated. Results: The mean volume differences per area between baseline and 28 days amounted to a gain of 1.6 mm (CM; SD±0.9), 1.5 mm (SCTG; ±0.1), and a loss of 0.003 mm (control; ±0.3). At 84 days, the mean volume differences per area to baseline measured a gain of 1.4 mm (CM; ±1.1), 1.4 mm (SCTG; ±0.4), and a loss of 0.3 mm (control; ±0.3). The differences between CM and SCTG were statistically significant compared with control at 28 and 84 days (p<0.001). Conclusion: Within the limits of this animal study, the CM may serve as a replacement for autogenous connective tissue.

Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data

“…Moreover, it has also been observed that the tissues underlying the soft tissue grafts undergo remodeling processes as well [18]. This appears to affect not only soft tissues (in case of a split-flap), but also hard tissues in case the transplants are placed on top of bone [17,29].…”

“…In order to replace the harvesting of autogenous tissue, new volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrices (VCMX) were developed allowing for soft tissue volume augmentation [16]. In vitro and preclinical data showed favorable histological and volumetric results in terms of tissue integration and volume gain [17][18][19]. Although recent clinical data show similar volume gain when 4 augmenting implant sites with SCTG or VCMX [20], long term data monitoring volume changes at implant sites are still scarce .…”

Palatal wound healing using a xenogeneic collagen matrix – histological outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Namely collagen matrices made of collagen type I and III have been the field of interest in recent years. These substitute materials were evaluated in preclinical and clinical studies for gain of keratinized tissue around teeth and implants, for recession coverage, for ridge preservation and even for soft tissue volume gain (Schmitt et al, 2015, Rotundo and Pini-Prato, 2012, Nevins et al, 2011, Lorenzo et al, 2012, Jung et al, 2013b, Thoma et al, 2010, Cardaropoli et al, 2012. The currently available evidence suggests that these collagen matrices can be safely used, integrate well into surrounding tissue, increase tissue thickness and increase the width of keratinized tissue to an extent close to the gold standard, the autogenous tissue (Sanz et al, 2009, Thoma et al, 2012, Jung et al, 2011.…”

Volumetric changes at pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a controlled clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up

“…These measurements are based on impressions taken at various time-points, the digitization and later superimposition of these images. In vitro, preclinical and clinical studies were performed and demonstrated that this technique is adequate and accurate and may well serve to analyze volumetric changes of tissues over time (Windisch et al, 2007, Thoma et al, 2010, Schneider et al, 2011. This technique has recently been applied to evaluate volumetric changes at implant sites, with follow-ups up to one year (De Bruyckere et al, 2015, Schneider et al, 2011, Sanz Martin et al, 2015.…”