Volumetric soft tissue alterations in the early healing phase after peri‐ implant soft tissue contour augmentation with a porcine collagen matrix versus the autologous connective tissue graft: A controlled clinical trial

Schmitt, Christian; Brückbauer, Patrick; Schlegel, Karl Andreas; Buchbender, Mayte; Adler, Werner; Matta, Ragai Edward

doi:10.1111/jcpe.13387

Cited by 44 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors concluded that in both cases there was an increase in the soft tissue thickness, but higher values were noted in the group where CTG was used [31]. The CTG regarded as the gold standard has also demonstrated greater efficiency in the early healing phase after surgery [32]. Similar data were obtained by other authors who carried out a comparative analysis of the use of CTG and collagen matrixes to increase the soft tissue volume [30,33].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

Current concepts of surgical methods to increase mucosal thickness during dental implantation ‎

Ashurko¹,

Esayan²,

Magdalyanova³

et al. 2021

J Adv Pharm Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 57%

Current concepts of surgical methods to increase mucosal thickness during dental implantation ‎

Ashurko¹,

Esayan²,

Magdalyanova³

et al. 2021

J Adv Pharm Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nine articles were excluded after careful reading, since they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Finally, 19 studies [ 12 , 16 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] were included in the systematic review (SR) and one of them was excluded for the quantitative analysis, so the meta-analysis is based on 18 articles [ 12 , 16 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. The reasons for exclusion are reported in Table 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Varied applications for soft tissue augmentation were described in the included studies: 12 articles in relation to implant sites [ 12 , 16 , 19 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 ] and 7 concerning teeth [ 27 , 28 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 41 ]. All the included studies were RCTs except for three CCTs [ 31 , 37 , 42 ], but all of them included at least two parallel arms, the use of CTG versus CM. The different therapeutic options used for soft tissue augmentation found in the included studies are shown in Figure 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 411 patients which undergone soft tissue augmentation surgery, were analyzed. 11 studies evaluated gingival thickness [ 12 , 16 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 ] and 15 reported data for width of keratinized mucosa [ 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 43 ]. Among all the included studies, the xenogeneic collagen matrix Mucograft (Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) is the soft tissue substitute used the most [ 16 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Volume-stable collagen matrix (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) [ 12 , 19 , 39 , 43 ] was used in four articles. Mucoderm (Botiss biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany), which is also a xenogeneic collagen matrix, was used in four other articles included [ 28 , 36 , 41 , 42 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collagen Matrix vs. Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft tissues have been shown to be critical for the maintenance of both teeth and implants. Currently, regenerative soft tissue techniques propose the use of collagen matrices, which can avoid the drawbacks derived from the obtainment of autogenous tissue graft. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to ascertain the efficacy of collagen matrices (CM) compared to autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) to improve soft tissue dimensions. An electronic and manual literature searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT) that compared CTG and CM. Pooled data of width of keratinized tissue (KT) and mucosal thickness (MT) were collected and weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I2). If I2 > 50% a random-effects model was applied. Nineteen studies were included based on the eligibility criteria. When using CTG a higher MT gain (0.32 mm, ranging from 0.49 to 0.16 mm) was obtained than when employing CM. Similar result was obtained for the width of KT gain, that was 0.46 mm higher (ranging from 0.89 to 0.02 mm) when employing CTG. However, it can be stated that, although autogenous CTG achieves higher values, CM are an effective alternative in terms of total width of KT and MT gain.

show abstract

Efficacy of Xenogeneic Collagen Matrices in Augmenting Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Dadlani,

Joseph,

Anil

2024

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundXenogenic collagen matrices (XCMs) are gaining popularity for soft tissue augmentation in dental implants; yet, gaps exist in our understanding of their comparative effectiveness.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta‐analysis focuses on studies that utilize soft tissue augmentation techniques for dental implants to improve keratinized mucosa width (KMW), soft tissue thickness (STT), and soft tissue volume (STV). We compared porcine collagen matrices with autogenous grafts when no bone grafts were utilized.Materials and MethodsWe searched databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials published between January 2013 and July 2023 that assessed the efficacy of XCM in peri‐implant soft tissue augmentation. The primary outcome included KMW changes while the secondary outcome was STT/STV changes. Statistical analyses were conducted using a random‐ or fixed‐effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.ResultsNine studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and six were included in the meta‐analysis. No significant intergroup differences were observed (p > 0.05), but a significant difference was observed in favor of KMW ≥ 2 mm. Heterogeneity among the studies varied at the 6‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups, with I2 values of 78% and 0%, respectively. The pooled mean difference between the XCM and autograft groups was −0.96 (−1.71 to −0.21), which shows that there was a larger increase in KMW in the autograft group compared with the XCM group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsCollagen matrices are less effective than autogenous grafts at increasing keratinized tissue and STT/STV, but the two techniques yield comparable aesthetic outcomes. Additional studies are necessary to better guide clinical practice and improve patient outcomes.

show abstract

Volumetric soft tissue alterations in the early healing phase after peri‐ implant soft tissue contour augmentation with a porcine collagen matrix versus the autologous connective tissue graft: A controlled clinical trial

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Cited by 44 publications

References 32 publications

Current concepts of surgical methods to increase mucosal thickness during dental implantation ‎

Current concepts of surgical methods to increase mucosal thickness during dental implantation ‎

Collagen Matrix vs. Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of Xenogeneic Collagen Matrices in Augmenting Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About