Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for buccal soft tissue augmentation at implant site. A randomized, controlled clinical trial

Abstract

CTG was more effective than XCM to increase buccal peri-implant soft tissue thickness.

The influence of different soft‐tissue grafting procedures at single implant placement on esthetics: A randomized controlled trial

“…Conversely, patients were generally less satisfied with the CT grafted implant sites at T 12 . This might be explained by the higher patient morbidity when harvesting the CTG from the patients’ palate compared to patients who had not received a graft or a XCM and, thus, did not have a second surgical site . Nevertheless, this could not be seen in question outcomes asking whether patients regretted choosing the treatment they did and whether they would recommend the treatment to others.…”

“…XCM was also demonstrated to be effective in the long term, with stable esthetics . In contrast to this, Cairo et al . observed a more effective increase in soft‐tissue thickness with the application of CTG than with XCM.…”

Extracellular matrix‐based scaffolding technologies for periodontal and peri‐implant soft tissue regeneration

“…[39][40][41] The compact layer, made from porcine peritoneum, acts as a barrier and provides stability, while the porous layer, obtained from the porcine skin, is designed for supporting blood clot stabilization and the promotion of cellular ingrowth. [41][42][43] Among its main advantages are the reduced surgical time and patient morbidity compared with autogenous soft tissue grafts. [41][42][43] Among its main advantages are the reduced surgical time and patient morbidity compared with autogenous soft tissue grafts.…”

Injectable platelet‐rich fibrin and microneedling for gingival augmentation in thin periodontal phenotype: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes were used for the allocation (Cairo et al, ). An allocation array was created using a computer‐generated random list, and sealed, opaque envelopes including the procedures were randomly divided into two groups for each patient by an independent examiner (ES) with arrays generated using a computer‐assisted randomization table (http://www.randomizer.org/Copyright© 1997–2011 by Geoffrey C. Urbaniak and Scott Plous).…”