Volumetric assessment of volume stable collagen matrix in maxillary single implant site development: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

IntroductionThe stability of soft tissue volume around dental implants is an important factor for the final esthetic outcome. The main objective of this study was to compare volume stable collagen matrix (VCMX) versus connective tissue graft (CTG) in the augmentation of soft tissue profiles in single implant sites with a class I Siebert ridge defect.Materials and MethodsTwenty patients (14 females and 6 males) were enrolled in the present study. After implant placement and augmentation of the buccal defect by VCMX or CTG, post‐operative evaluation of the volumetric changes at the augmented implant site was carried out at 3, 6, and 9 months as primary outcome, clinical and radiographic soft tissue thickness were carried out at baseline and 9‐month intervals, visual analog scale (VAS) and oral health impact profile‐14 (OHIP14) were recorded 2 weeks after the surgery.ResultsA statistically significant difference in soft tissue volume was found between baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively in both groups with the highest value at 9 months (136.33 ± 86.80) (mm3) in VCMX and (186.38 ± 57.52) (mm3) in CTG. Soft tissue thickness was significantly increased in both groups at 9 months in comparison to baseline. However, there was a significantly higher increase in soft tissue thickness at 9 months in CTG (3.87 ± 0.91) than in VCMX (2.94 ± 0.31). Regarding the radiographic soft tissue thickness, there was a statistically significant increase in both groups at 9 months in comparison to baseline. However, there was a statistically higher increase in the radiographic soft tissue thickness at 9 months in CTG (3.08 ± 0.97) than in VCMX (2.37 ± 0.29). VAS showed a statistically lower value in VCMX (0.4 ± 0.7) than CTG (2.8 ± 1.48). The OHIP recorded lower values in the VCMX group than the CTG group with no statistical significance. In addition, there was no difference in the PES between the two groups.ConclusionThe present study showed that CTG and VCMX were both effective in soft tissue augmentation around implants in the esthetic zone. However, CTG proved more efficient in increasing peri‐implant soft tissue volume and mucosal thickness around single implants at a 9‐month follow‐up period. VCMX was associated with less pain or discomfort and reduced patient morbidity, as reflected by the significantly reduced VAS value in the VCMX group.