Xenogeneic Dermal Matrix Versus Autologous Connective Tissue Graft Versus No Graft at Abutment Connection for Improving Aesthetics: 6 Month Outcomes of a Randomised Controlled Trial

Baldi, Niccolò; Buti, Jacopo; Mensi, Magda; Alfonsi, F.; Cinquini, Chiara; Tonelli, Paolo; Barone, Antonella

doi:10.36130/ctd.03.2020.05

Cited by 10 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen studies were RCTs (Anderson et al., 2014; Baldi et al., 2020; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; Cairo et al., 2017; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Froum et al., 2015; Huber et al., 2018; Hutton et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Vellis et al., 2019; Wiesner et al., 2010), two were non‐randomized studies (Fenner et al., 2016; Roccuzzo et al., 2016) and four were case series (Roccuzzo et al., 2019; Schallhorn et al., 2015; Zucchelli et al., 2013, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROMs following soft tissue augmentation with CTG were investigated in 15 studies (Anderson et al., 2014; Baldi et al., 2020; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; Cairo et al., 2017; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Fenner et al., 2016; Huber et al., 2018; Hutton et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Roccuzzo et al., 2019; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Wiesner et al., 2010; Zucchelli et al., ,2013, 2018). In particular, nine of them harvested a sub‐epithelial CTG (Anderson et al., 2014; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Huber et al., 2018; Hutton et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Wiesner et al., 2010), two articles reported the outcomes (on the same cohort of patients) of CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a free gingival graft (FGGs) (Zucchelli et al., 2013, 2018), one study utilized a CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a gingival graft from the maxillary tuberosity (Roccuzzo et al., 2019), one trial utilized either sub‐epithelial CTG or a CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a FGG (Cairo et al., 2017) and two studies did not specify the harvesting technique (Baldi et al., 2020; Fenner et al., 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, nine of them harvested a sub‐epithelial CTG (Anderson et al., 2014; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Huber et al., 2018; Hutton et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Wiesner et al., 2010), two articles reported the outcomes (on the same cohort of patients) of CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a free gingival graft (FGGs) (Zucchelli et al., 2013, 2018), one study utilized a CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a gingival graft from the maxillary tuberosity (Roccuzzo et al., 2019), one trial utilized either sub‐epithelial CTG or a CTG obtained from the de‐epithelialization of a FGG (Cairo et al., 2017) and two studies did not specify the harvesting technique (Baldi et al., 2020; Fenner et al., 2016). PROMs of FGG were evaluated in two studies (Roccuzzo et al., 2016; Vellis et al., 2019), while three trials reported on acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (Anderson et al., 2014; Baldi et al., 2020; Hutton et al., 2018) and eight studies assessed the PROMs of xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) (Cairo et al., 2017; Froum et al., 2015; Huber et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Schallhorn et al., 2015; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Vellis et al., 2019). Five studies compared PROMs of grated vs. non‐grafted sites (Baldi et al., 2020; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; Froum et al., 2015; Roccuzzo et al., 2016; Wiesner et al., 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PROMs of FGG were evaluated in two studies (Roccuzzo et al., 2016; Vellis et al., 2019), while three trials reported on acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (Anderson et al., 2014; Baldi et al., 2020; Hutton et al., 2018) and eight studies assessed the PROMs of xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) (Cairo et al., 2017; Froum et al., 2015; Huber et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2012; Schallhorn et al., 2015; Thoma et al., 2016, 2020; Vellis et al., 2019). Five studies compared PROMs of grated vs. non‐grafted sites (Baldi et al., 2020; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; Froum et al., 2015; Roccuzzo et al., 2016; Wiesner et al., 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine articles investigated patient aesthetic evaluation (Anderson et al., 2014; Baldi et al., 2020; Bianchi & Sanfilippo, 2004; Cairo et al., 2017; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Roccuzzo et al., 2019; Wiesner et al., 2010; Zucchelli et al., 2013, 2018). Among the articles that performed soft tissue augmentation primarily for increasing tissue thickness (Baldi et al., 2020; Cairo et al., 2017; De Bruyckere et al., 2020; Wiesner et al., 2010), the mean VAS value ranged from 87 to 94.1 (Baldi et al., 2020; Cairo et al., 2017; De Bruyckere et al., 2020). In a split‐mouth design, Wiesner et al observed that the patients significantly preferred the aesthetic of the grafted (CTG) site compared to the non‐grafted site (Wiesner et al., 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Patient‐reported outcome measures following soft‐tissue grafting at implant sites: A systematic review

Stefanini

Tavelli

Barootchi

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To review the available literature on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. Materials and Methods A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed to identify clinical studies that involved soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and reported PROMs, including post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetics and satisfactions. Results Nineteen articles were included in the qualitative analysis. Autogenous grafts (free gingival graft and connective tissue graft), acellular dermal matrix and xenogeneic collagen matrix were utilized, either with a bilaminar‐ or an apically positioned flap approach. PROMs reported in the literature included perceived hardship of the procedure and pain during the surgery, post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, number of days with discomfort, satisfaction, aesthetic evaluation, quality of life and willingness to undergo the treatment again. Most of the included studies showed similar PROMs between autogenous grafts and substitutes, in terms of post‐operative morbidity, painkillers intake, quality of life, aesthetic assessment and satisfaction. Nevertheless, a trend towards lower post‐operative discomfort was observed for graft substitutes. High scores for patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation were observed in all the interventions compared to non‐grafted sites. Conclusions PROMs represent a crucial endpoint of clinical studies evaluating the outcomes of soft tissue grafts at implant sites. Most of the studies did not find significant differences in terms of patient morbidity and painkillers between autogenous grafts and substitutes. Soft tissue grafting can enhance patient satisfaction and aesthetic evaluation compared to non‐grafted sites.

show abstract