Aim To assess histopathological and histomorphometric outcomes of soft tissue volume augmentation procedures at pontic sites using a volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrix (VCMX) and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix (XCM). Materials and methods In twelve adult beagle dogs, the mandibular premolars and first molar were hemisected and the mesial root extracted. Soft tissue augmentation was randomly performed using VCMX, XCM, or a sham-operated control. Sacrifice was performed after 4, 8, and 26 weeks. Non-decalcified sections were analyzed for histopathologic and histomorphometric measurements at four different levels below the crest (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 5.5 mm). Results Group VCMX presented a greater overall amount of soft tissue at all healing time points, more pronounced fibroblast ingrowth, vascularization, and a substantial new collagen deposition. Over time, group XCM demonstrated faster signs of degradation compared with group VCMX. Four weeks after augmentation, group VCMX yielded a higher mean ridge width compared with groups XCM (2.22 mm VCMX, 0.89 mm XCM (at 2.5 mm); 2.05 mm VCMX, 0.80 mm XCM (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05) and sham (0.59 mm sham (at 1.5 mm); 0.48 mm (at 2.5 mm); 0.44 mm (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05). After healing periods of 8 and 26 weeks, measurements in group VCMX remained significantly higher compared with group sham both at 8 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 5.5 mm) and at 26 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm) (p < 0.05). Conclusion The use of a cross-linked collagen matrix resulted in a greater and more stable ridge width over time compared with control groups. Clinical relevance Soft tissue volume augmentation at pontic sites is more effective when using a cross-linked compared with a non-cross-linked collagen matrix.

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.

Background : Dental implants have become increasingly important in reconstructive dentistry, and implantation has made a major development in the course of digitization.Aim/Hypothesis : The goal of this study is to compare the effective costs between different commercial available virtual dental implant planning programs in combination with 3D-printed drill guide.Material and Methods : To have a standardized comparable case situation we assumed to plan virtually 2 parallel dental implants and to order a drill guide. The price of virtual dental implant planning programs of common companies were identified (Table 1). Then two user-scenarios were calculated-A) rarely users (20 implant drill guides in 5 years) B) frequent users (200 drill-guides in 5 years). All costs were calculated in Euro including buying and using the planning software, ordering and sending out the drill guide. Not included were the costs of the planning cone beam ct, and the intraoral scanned model. Each company was asked if the results of the price-calculations were correct. If no answer or comment was done, the prices were fixed.Results : 9 common companies were identified, who distribute software for virtual planning for dental implant positioning and ordering a drillguide. Frequent user prices vary from 104 to 507 Euros. rarely user prices vary from 298 to 622 Euros. The gap between frequent user prices and rarely user prices in each company vary from 63 to 307 Euros. Conclusion and Clinical Implications: Prices have a big range of variability. Most companies have a complex software and logistic price system.There is a big gap between prices in frequent and rare users among the companies.