Soft tissue replacement grafts have become a substantial element to increase tissue volume in plastic periodontal and implant surgery. Autogenous subepithelial connective tissue grafts are increasingly applied in aesthetic indications like soft tissue thickening, recession treatment, ridge preservation, soft tissue ridge augmentation and papilla re‐construction. For the clinical performance of connective tissue graft harvesting and transplantation, a fundamental understanding of the anatomy at the donor sites and a sound knowledge of tissue integration and re‐vascularization processes are required. Possible donor sites are the anterior and posterior palate including the maxillary tuberosity, providing grafts of distinct geometric shape and histologic composition. The selective clinical application of different grafts depends on the amount of required tissue, the indication and the personal preference of the treating surgeon. One of the main future challenges is to volumetrically evaluate and compare the efficacy and long‐term stability of soft tissue autografts and their prospective substitutes. The aim of this review was to discuss the advantages and shortfalls of different donor sites, substitute materials and harvesting techniques. Although standardized recommendations regarding treatment choice and execution can hardly be given, guidelines for predictable and successful treatment outcomes are provided based on clinical experience and the available scientific data.

Volumetric analysis showed a low degree of contour changes from extraction and implant placement to the follow-ups. Mucosal recession at the implant restoration was comparable to that of the neighboring teeth. Within the limitations of this descriptive study, the socket shield technique offers reduced invasiveness at the time of surgery and high esthetic outcomes with effective preservation of facial tissue contours. This technique should not be used in routine clinical practice until a higher level evidence in the form of prospective clinical trials is available.

The applied modification seems not to interfere with implant osseointegration and may still preserve the buccal plate. It may offer a feasible treatment option for vertically fractured teeth.

Background Implant survival and implant success (freedom of biologic complications) are important factors in assessing the success of implant therapy. However, these factors are not the only determinants. Patients’ satisfaction also plays a very important role in daily practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess patients’ satisfaction regarding function (phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability) and aesthetics in patients treated with XiVE and Frialite implants in a private periodontal practice ten years after implant placement. Furthermore, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was evaluated. Methods Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding overall satisfaction, phonetics, chewing comfort, stability, cleanability, and aesthetics were examined on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 10 years ± 6 months after implant placement in a cross-sectional survey. OHRQoL and psychological impact were assessed via the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire (PIDAQ). Potential influence of patient-related factors (age, gender, smoking, peri-implantitis, implant position, type of restoration) on VAS, OHRQoL and PIDAQ were investigated using regression analyses. Results High satisfaction with implant-supported restorations was seen in all 95 patients ten years after implant placement. Mean VAS-score for general satisfaction with implant-supported restoration was 93.0% (SD ± 9.4, median: 96.3%, range 50.0–100%). Mean OHIP score was 11.3 (SD ± 10.8, median: 9.0, range 0–45), mean PIDAQ score 20.5 (SD ± 11.37, median: 17.0, range 0–52). A slight tendency that presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis lowers satisfaction could be detected (overall satisfaction: ordinal, p = 0.012, VAS, p = 0.026). Also, the factors age, implant position and type of restoration might have an impact on patient’s satisfaction. Conclusions Patients restored with mostly fixed implant-supported restorations showed a very high patient satisfaction regarding function and aesthetics 10-year after implant placement. The presence of a moderate/severe peri-implantitis showed a slight tendency for influencing patient satisfaction. Due to the cross-sectional design results have to be interpreted with care.

Both investigated systems showed clinically acceptable values within the limitations of this in vitro study. However, one showed less internal accuracy when regular zirconia was used.