Clinical efficacy of xenogeneic and allogeneic 3D matrix in the management of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Formiga, Márcio de Carvalho; Nagasawa, Magda Aline; Moraschini, Vittório; Ata-Ali, Javier; Sculean, Anton; Shibli, Jamil Awad

doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03370-w

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results were probably due to the quite small number of manuscripts finally included in the mentioned systematic reviews (11 and 7 articles, respectively), that did not account for the scientific evidence. Carvalho et al [ 52 ], in accordance with our results, disclosed that the use of connective tissue graft significantly increased keratinized mucosa width when applied to recessions ≥ 2 mm, but as the results were expressed in terms of complete root coverage, then it is not possible to ascertain the real gain using the two different surgical approaches. Therefore, although there are many reviews that analyze soft tissue augmentation in different clinical situations, this is the first study in which the quantitative differences in keratinized mucosa width and gingival thickness are calculated for collagen matrix and autogenous connective tissue, establishing a significant differential gain between each other regardless of whether the recipient is an implant or tooth.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In contrast to these results, Gargallo-Albiol et al [ 2 ] stated that gingival thickness gain was similar ( p = 0.3) when using collagen matrix or autogenous connective tissue. Other previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses also did not find significant difference between both treatments [ 2 , 3 , 52 ]. Moraschini et al [ 17 ] and Gargallo-Albiol et al [ 2 ] also concluded that the gain of keratinized mucosa width was similar ( p = 0.14 and p = 0.62, respectively), when comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

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

show abstract

“…This explains why BM is of growing interest to industry as well as practitioner and patient communities. Recent evidence‐based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty [1–33]. For this review, we will concentrate in the use of biologic mesh in complex abdominal defects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta‐Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In recent decades, biologic mesh (BM) has become an important adjunct to surgical practice. Recent evidence‐based clinical applications of BM include but are not limited to: reconstruction of abdominal wall defects; breast reconstruction; face, head and neck surgery; periodontal surgery; other hernia repairs (diaphragmatic, hiatal/paraesophageal, inguinal and perineal); hand surgery; and shoulder arthroplasty. Prior systematic reviews of BM in complex abdominal wall hernia repair had several shortcomings that our comprehensive review seeks to address, including exclusion of laparoscopic repair, assessment of risk of bias, use of an acceptable meta‐analytic method and review of risk factors identified in multivariable regression analyses. Materials and methods We sought articles of BM for open ventral hernia repair reporting on early complications, late complications or recurrences and included minimum of 50. We used the quality in prognostic studies risk of bias assessment tool. Random effects meta‐analysis was applied. Results This comprehensive review selected 62 articles from 51 studies that included 6,079 patients. Meta‐analytic pooling found that early complications are present in about 50%, surgical site occurrences (SSOs) in 37%, surgical site infections (SSIs) in 18%, reoperation in 7%, readmission in 20% and mortality in 3%. Meta‐analytic estimates of late outcomes included overall complications (42%), SSOs (40%) and SSIs (22%). Specific SSOs included seroma (14%), hematoma (4%), abscess (10%), necrosis (5%), dehiscence (8%) and fistula formation (5%). Reoperation occurred in about 17%, mesh explantation in 9% and recurrence in 36%. Conclusion Estimates of nearly all outcomes from individual studies were highly heterogeneous and sensitivity analyses and meta‐regressions generally failed to explain this heterogeneity. Recurrence is the only outcome for which there are consistent findings for risk factors. Bridge placement of BM is associated with higher risk of recurrence. Prior hernia repair, history of reintervention and history of mesh removal were also risk factors for increased recurrence.

show abstract

“…A recent systematic review has attempted to answer the question whether any 3D matrix biomaterial used for root coverage of localized class 1 defects may provide equivalent outcomes with CTG [ 29 ]. The results have shown that in terms of relative root coverage, no statistically significant differences were found among autogenous grafts, allografts, and xenogeneic materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate t he long-term outcomes following treatment of RT 1 multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGR) using the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) with either a collagen matrix CM or a connective tissue graft (CTG). Material and methods Sixteen of the original 22 subjects included in a randomized, controlled split-mouth clinical trial were available for the 9-year follow-up (114 sites). Recessions were randomly treated by means of MCAT + CM (test) or MCAT + CTG (control). Complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), gingival recession depth (GRD), probing pocket depth (PD), keratinized tissue width (KTW), and thickness (KGT) were compared with baseline values and with the 12-month results. Results After 9 years, CRC was observed in 2 patients, one in each group. At 9 years, MRC was 23.0 ± 44.5% in the test and 39.7 ± 35.1% in the control group (p = 0.179). The MRC reduction compared to 12 months was − 50.1 ± 47.0% and − 48.3 ± 37.7%, respectively. The upper jaw obtained 31.92 ± 43.0% of MRC for the test and 51.1 ± 27.8% for the control group (p = 0.111) compared to the lower jaw with 8.3 ± 46.9% and 20.7 ± 40.3%. KTW and KGT increased for both CM and CTG together from 2.0 ± 0.7 to 3.1 ± 1.0 mm (< 0.0001). There were no statistically significant changes in PD. Conclusion The present results indicate that (a) treatment of MAGR using MCAT in conjunction with either CM or CTG is likely to show a relapse over a period of 9 years, and (b) the outcomes obtained in maxillary areas seem to be more stable compared to the mandibular ones. Clinical relevance The mean root coverage at 12 months could not be fully maintained over 9 years. On a long-term basis, the results seem to be less stable in the mandible as compared to maxillary areas.

show abstract

Clinical efficacy of xenogeneic and allogeneic 3D matrix in the management of gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 60 publications

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

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

Biologic Mesh in Surgery: A Comprehensive Review and Meta‐Analysis of Selected Outcomes in 51 Studies and 6079 Patients

Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About