Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation at immediately placed implants: a prospective clinical trial

Angelis, Paolo De; Rella, Edoardo; Manicone, Paolo Francesco; Liguori, Margherita Giorgia; Rosa, G. De; Cavalcanti, C.; Galeazzi, N.; D’Addona, Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2023.01.019

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, only one soft‐tissue substitute material (VCMX) was tested, but several materials are commercially available. Each material has its specific characteristics in terms of origin, cross‐linked or not, cross‐linking method and structure (Ashurko et al, 2022; Cairo et al, 2017; De Angelis et al, 2023; Tavelli et al, 2022, 2023). Studies regarding those materials generally have shown increased soft‐tissue volume, but such an effect did not surpass autogenous tissue transplant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A series of clinical studies performed by one research group reported the following main outcomes: (i) non‐inferior tissue profile of a soft‐tissue substitute compared with a CTG, and (ii) stability of the soft‐tissue contour after final prosthesis insertion for up to 5 years (Huber et al, 2018; Thoma et al, 2016, 2020; Thoma, Gasser, et al, 2023; Zeltner et al, 2017). Other investigators have also reported the positive effects of a soft‐tissue substitute in terms of soft‐tissue volume gain, aesthetics, patient satisfaction and peri‐implant health (Cairo et al, 2017; Chappuis et al, 2018; De Angelis et al, 2021, 2023; Sanz‐Martin et al, 2019). In recent large‐scale multi‐centre clinical studies, CTG produced a more favourable soft‐tissue profile than the soft‐tissue substitute, whereas the patients' aesthetic appreciation, Pink Esthetic Score and midfacial recession were similar for the two treatments (Cosyn et al, 2022; Hammerle et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of implant placement timing and type of soft‐tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical canine model

Lim,

Lee,

Shin

et al. 2024

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo determine the effects of implant timing and type of soft‐tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical model.Materials and MethodsFour implant placement protocols were randomly applied at the mesial root sites of the third and fourth mandibular premolars in 10 mongrel dogs: immediate placement (group IP), early placement (group EP), delayed placement with/without alveolar ridge preservation (groups ARP and DP, respectively). A connective‐tissue graft (CTG) or porcine‐derived volume‐stable collagen matrix (VCMX) was applied to enhance the ridge profile (simultaneously with implant placement in group IP and staged for others), resulting in five sites for each combination. All dogs were sacrificed 3 months after soft‐tissue grafting. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed, and the data were analysed descriptively.ResultsCTG and VCMX were difficult to differentiate from the augmented area. The median total tissue thickness on the buccal aspect of the implant was largest in group IP/CTG (between 2.78 and 3.87 mm). The soft‐tissue thickness was generally favourable with CTG at all implant placement timings. Within the DP groups, CTG yielded statistically significantly larger total and soft‐tissue thickness than VCMX (p < .05). Among the groups with VCMX, group EP/VCMX showed the largest soft‐tissue thickness at apical levels to the implant shoulder.ConclusionsCTG generally led to greater tissue thickness than VCMX.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of implant placement timing and type of soft‐tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical canine model

Lim,

Lee,

Shin

et al. 2024

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Autogenous graft versus collagen matrices for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis*

Tommasato,

Del Fabbro,

Oliva

et al. 2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of Sagittal Root Position, Angle, and Bone Thickness on Peri-implant Tissue Phenotype and Bone Level in Socket Shield Technique: A Retrospective Case Series

Gurbuz,

Ceylan,

Ersoz

et al. 2024

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There were only a few studies investigating the effect of sagittal root position (SRP), sagittal root angle (SRA), and buccal bone thickness (BBT) on peri-implant tissues using the socket shield technique (SST). This retrospective case series aimed to evaluate the SRP, SRA, and BBT in socket shield cases and examine the effect of these anatomical factors on the peri-implant tissue phenotype and bone level. Data from 27 patients (14 women, 13 men) treated with SST in the maxillary esthetic region between July 2019 and September 2021 were included. Clinical indices (modified plaque and bleeding indices, probing depth, keratinized mucosa width, mucosal thickness) and periapical radiographic recordings (marginal bone level) taken immediately after permanent prosthesis placement and 1 year later were used. Cone beam computerized tomography images were used to examine BBT, SRP, and SRA before implant placement and horizontal and vertical bone levels before implant placement and 1 year after prosthetic rehabilitation. The data were divided into groups based on BBT (<1 and ≥1 mm) and SRA values (<10° and ≥10°). There were no significant differences in 1-year clinical factors between the SRA <10° and SRA ≥10° groups. However, higher vertical bone loss was found in the SRA ≥10° group (P = .01, d = 0.53). There were no significant differences in clinical or radiographic factors between the BBT <1 mm and BBT ≥1 mm groups. In conclusion, BBT showed no significant effect on tissue phenotype and bone level, but SRA affected bone level in socket shield cases.

show abstract

Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation at immediately placed implants: a prospective clinical trial

Cited by 4 publications

References 37 publications

Effects of implant placement timing and type of soft‐tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical canine model

Effects of implant placement timing and type of soft‐tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical canine model

Autogenous graft versus collagen matrices for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. A systematic review and network meta-analysis*

Effect of Sagittal Root Position, Angle, and Bone Thickness on Peri-implant Tissue Phenotype and Bone Level in Socket Shield Technique: A Retrospective Case Series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About