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.

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

“…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].…”

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

“…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 .…”

“…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 .…”

“…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 ].…”

“…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 ].…”