Soft and hard tissue changes after immediate implant placement with or without a sub-epithelial connective tissue graft: results from a 6-months pilot randomized controlled clinical trial

Hard and soft tissue alterations after the application of different soft tissue grafting materials during immediate dental implant placement: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review is to compare the clinical outcomes of different soft tissue grafting materials (connective tissue graft (CTG), platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF), allogenic and xenogenic substitutes) applied in immediate implant placement with each other.

METHODS

Through an electronic search regarding the study's main question ("In patients with non-restorable teeth, who receive immediate dental implants (P), what is the best adjunctive soft tissue grafting approach among different autogenous, allogenous, and xenogenous grafts (I), to achieve the desired hard and soft tissue structure (O), compared to sites without grafting (C)?") in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) using different soft tissue grafts were identified and analyzed using a Bayesian random-effect network meta-analysis framework. The pink esthetic score (PES), marginal interproximal bone level changes (MIBL), buccal bone thickness changes (BBT), keratinized tissue width changes (KTW), soft tissue thickness changes (STT), papilla height changes (PH), midfacial gingival margin level changes (MGML) were defined as desired outcomes of the study; except for the MIBL with 12 - 24 months of follow-up, 6 - 12 months is considered for other outcomes.

RESULTS

After duplication removal, 903 studies were identified through the electronic search; from which 21 RCTs were included in the review. Among all comparisons in different outcomes, only CTG demonstrated a significantly higher gain in STT compared to not placing soft tissue graft. However, CTG in MIBL, KTW, STT, PH, and MGML, and uni-layer xenogenic collagen matrix in PES were the superior treatments, according to the treatment ranking based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA).

CONCLUSIONS

At the time of immediate implantation, there is no significant difference between different soft tissue grafts regarding the clinical outcomes of implants. However, the utilization of CTG can be suggested in cases with thin soft tissue. The acceptable efficacy of allogenic and xenogenic materials and the non-significant difference between them and CTG indicate supporting evidence for the application of these materials to specific clinical situations simultaneously with immediate implantation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42024568586.

Effect of different wound closure interventions on the clinical outcomes following immediate implant placement in the aesthetic area: A network meta-analysis based on thirty-four studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to systematically compare and assess the effect of various wound closure interventions on the clinical outcomes following immediate implant placement (IIP) in the esthetic zone.

DATA

Studies comparing the clinical effect of different interventions in the process of wound closure in IIP were included.

SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 34 studies involving 1213 implants and eight interventions were included in the network meta-analysis (NMA). The agreement between reviewers reached a kappa value of 0.84. In terms of reducing marginal peri-implant recession (MPR), as the primary outcome, NMA showed that connective tissue graft (CTG) [MD = -0.44, 95 % CI (-0.56, -0.33)], collagen matrix (CM) [MD = -0.32, 95 % CI (-0.46, -0.17)] and CGF [MD = -0.11, 95 %CI (-0.16, -0.06)] showed significant less MPR than the control group, and CTG [MD = -0.33, 95 %CI (-0.46, -0.20)] and CM [MD = -0.20, 95 %CI (-0.36, -0.05)] were also associated with less MPR compared to concentrate growth factor (CGF). The optimal intervention to prevent MPR was CTG. Among the secondary outcomes, CTG was determined as the optimal intervention to increase gingival thickness (GT), CGF ranked as the promising intervention to reduce marginal bone loss (MBL) and improve pink aesthetic score (PES).

CONCLUSION

The use of CTF could enhance soft tissue stability by minimizing MPR and increasing GT in the process of wound closure in IIP, and CGF could better prevent MBL and improving PES. However, the findings related to CGF were based on a limited number of studies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

CTG and CGF ought to be worthy of clinical promotion to intervene wound closure of IIP in esthetic area, with the ability of improving the peri-implant soft and hard tissues. However, clinicians should still consider the specific clinical situation when selecting the most appropriate intervention or alternative materials.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Timing of Soft Tissue Augmentation in Immediate Implant Placement: Soft Tissue Changes and Esthetic Outcome

AIM

To assess the impact of the timing of soft tissue augmentation on soft tissue changes and esthetic outcome following single immediate implant placement (IIP) in the anterior maxilla.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a failing tooth and intact buccal bone wall in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were enrolled in this RCT. Following single IIP and socket grafting, they were randomly allocated to the control group (immediate soft tissue augmentation performed in the same surgical procedure-ISTA) or the test group (delayed soft tissue augmentation performed 3 months later-DSTA). Implants were placed with a surgical guide and immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Changes in soft tissue dimensions were assessed by a blinded clinician using superimposed STL files taken prior to surgery and at 1-year follow-up. The esthetic outcome was rated by a blinded clinician and the patient at 1-year follow-up. The study adhered to the STA-COSM (Soft Tissue Augmentation-Core Outcome Set and Measurements for implant dentistry trials) guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were randomized to each group (control: 16 females, 4 males, mean age 57.6; test: 9 females, 11 males, mean age 54.2). The mean change in buccal soft tissue profile was -0.251 and 0.083 mm for ISTA and DSTA, respectively. The mean difference of -0.318 mm in favor of DSTA was not significant (95% CI: -0.860 to 0.224, p = 0.241). Median midfacial recession was -0.200 and - 0.350 mm for ISTA and DSTA, respectively. The median difference of 0.200 mm in favor of ISTA was not significant (95% CI: -0.210 to 0.700, p = 0.311). Mesial and distal papillary recession, Pink Esthetic Score and patients' esthetic satisfaction failed to demonstrate a significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with an intact buccal bone wall, the timing of soft tissue augmentation following IIP had no significant impact on soft tissue changes and esthetic outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05537545.

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial on alveolar ridge preservation with immediate or delayed implant placement: Need for soft-tissue augmentation

AIM

To assess the impact of the timing of implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) on the need for soft-tissue augmentation (STA) and to identify the risk factors for horizontal and vertical soft-tissue loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a single failing tooth in the anterior maxilla (15-25) were treated at six centres. Following tooth extraction, they were randomly allocated to the test group (immediate implant placement, IIP) or control group (delayed implant placement, DIP). ARP was performed in both groups and implants were immediately restored with an implant-supported provisional crown. Six months after tooth extraction and ARP, a panel of five blinded clinicians assessed the need for STA on the basis of anonymized clinical pictures and a digital surface model. Lack of buccal soft-tissue convexity and/or mid-facial recession qualified for STA. Pre-operative and 6-month digital surface models were superimposed to assess horizontal and vertical soft-tissue changes.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included per group (test: 20 females, 10 males, mean age 53.1; control: 15 females, 15 males, mean age 59.8). The panel deemed STA as necessary in 24.1% and 35.7% of the cases following IIP and DIP, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] = 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.54-5.84]; p = .343). Loss of buccal soft-tissue profile was higher following DIP (estimated mean ratio = 1.66; 95% CI [1.10-2.52]; p = .018), as was mid-facial recession (mean difference [MD] = 0.47 mm; 95% CI [0.12-0.83]; p = .011). Besides DIP, regression analysis identified soft-tissue thickness (-0.57; 95% CI [-1.14 to -0.01]; p = .045) and buccal bone dehiscence (0.17; 95% CI [0.01-0.34]; p = .045) as additional risk factors for mid-facial recession. Surgeons found IIP significantly more difficult than DIP (visual analogue scale MD = -34.57; 95% CI [-48.79 to -20.36]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-centre randomized controlled trial failed to demonstrate a significant difference in the need for STA between IIP and DIP when judged by a panel of blinded clinicians. Based on objective soft-tissue changes, patients with thin buccal soft tissues, with a buccal bone dehiscence and treated with a delayed approach appeared particularly prone to soft-tissue loss.

Immediate Implant Placement with Soft Tissue Augmentation Using Acellular Dermal Matrix Versus Connective Tissue Graft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review investigates the efficacy of using connective tissue grafting (CTG) versus an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for soft tissue management in immediate implant placement (IIP). The study focuses on comparing the soft tissue thickness (STT) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) changes post-implantation. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted, targeting randomized clinical trials and cohort studies involving soft tissue grafting in conjunction with IIP. Data extraction and analysis focused on STT and KTW measurements from baseline to follow-up intervals of at least 6 months. The statistical analyses included the weighted mean differences and heterogeneity assessments among the studies. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the STT gain between CTG and ADM at 12 months, with the weighted mean differences favoring the control group but lacking statistical significance (CTG: 0.46 ± 0.53 mm, p = 0.338; ADM: 0.33 ± 0.44 mm, p = 0.459). The heterogeneity was high among the studies, with discrepancies notably influenced by individual study variations. Similarly, the changes in KTW were not significantly different between the two grafting materials. Conclusions: Both CTG and ADM are viable options for soft tissue management in IIP, with no significant difference in efficacy regarding the soft tissue thickness and keratinized tissue width outcomes. Future research should aim to minimize the heterogeneity and explore the long-term effects to better inform clinical decisions.

Effect of soft tissue volume on midfacial gingival margin alterations following immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone: a 1-year randomized clinical and volumetric trial

BACKGROUND

The current trial evaluated the midfacial gingival margin changes, volumetric, radiographic and clinical alterations 1-year following immediate implant placement with customized healing abutment (IIP + CHA) either solely, or in combination with xenograft (IIP + Bonegraft) or with connective tissue grafting (IIP + CTG) at sites with thin labial bone in the esthetic zone.

METHODS

Thirty-nine non-restorable maxillary teeth indicated for extraction in the esthetic zone were included. Participants were randomly assigned into three equal group; IIP + Bonegraft (Control), IIP + CTG and IIP + CHA. Midfacial gingival margin changes(mm) as primary outcome, labial soft tissue contour change(mm), interdental tissue height changes and total volume(mm3) were assessed. Amount of bone labial to the implant and crestal bone level changes were also recorded. All outcomes were measured 1-year post-operative.

RESULTS

The midfacial gingival margin changes demonstrated a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between the groups showing -0.98, -0.74 and -1.54 mm in sites treated with IIP + Bone graft, IIP + CTG and IIP + CHA respectively after1-year. While labial soft tissue contour change (mm), total volume (mm3) and distal interdental tissue height changes (mm) revealed a significant difference after one-year between the studied groups, yet mesial interdental tissue height changes showed no difference (P > 0.05). Both IIP + Bone graft and IIP + CHA groups revealed a significant positive correlation between the total volume loss (mm3) after 1 year and mid-facial gingival margin changes (P ≤ 0.05). However, no significant correlation was observed in the IIP + CTG group (P = 0.63). CBCT measurements showed a significant difference in crestal bone changes between the three groups (P ≤ 0.05), yet, there was no significant difference regarding mean amount of bone labial to the implant(P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation suggests that the mere presence of CTG simultaneous with IIP in the anterior maxilla reduced the midfacial gingival margin alterations (mm), besides, CTG decreased the overall volume loss (mm3) by 5-folds compared to the other studied groups after one year. Meanwhile, using CHA alone with IIP failed to maintain the peri-implant soft tissues contour.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The current trial was retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov (ID: NCT05975515, Date: 27-July-2023).

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

INTRODUCTION

The 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 METHODS

Twenty 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Soft-tissue augmentation for increasing keratinized tissue around dental implants: A systematic review

Background

This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the efficacy of soft-tissue augmentation procedures in enhancing the width of keratinized mucosa (KM) surrounding implants with compromised soft-tissue status.

Materials and Methods

A thorough search was conducted on MEDLINE through PubMed and EMBASE via Ovid, supplemented by manual article searches. Inclusion criteria comprised human studies published in English within the past decade (up to July 2023), focusing on soft-tissue grafting techniques for augmenting keratinized mucosal width. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were employed to evaluate the risk of bias in selected studies.

Results

The review includes 27 studies, comprising nine prospective clinical studies, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 5 case series. Notably, interventions demonstrated an augmented KM ranging from 0.89 mm to 7.7 mm. Optimal outcomes were observed with apically positioned partial-thickness flaps and vestibuloplasty (VP) utilizing xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) or free gingival graft (FGG). However, heterogeneity in study designs precluded meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations, this study emphasizes the potential to augment KM width through apically positioned partial-thickness flaps and VP techniques employing XCM or FGG. Further RCTs with extended follow-up are needed to refine treatment approaches, improve outcomes, and address gaps in understanding graft integration mechanisms and strategies to minimize graft shrinkage.

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

AIM

To determine the effects of implant timing and type of soft-tissue grafting on histological and histomorphometric outcomes in a preclinical model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four 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.

RESULTS

CTG 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.

CONCLUSIONS

CTG generally led to greater tissue thickness than VCMX.

Hard and soft tissue alterations using dual-zone concept versus connective tissue graft at maxillary immediate implant placement: A 1-year randomized clinical and volumetric trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the esthetic outcome, as well as clinical, radiographic, and volumetric tissue alterations 1 year after immediate implant placement (IIP) with connective tissue grafting (CTG) versus dual-zone concept (DZ) at sites with thin labial bone in the esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 30 patients treated with IIP simultaneous with either CTG or DZ (n = 15 each). Pink esthetic score (PES) was assessed 6 months after crown placement as the primary outcome. Amount of bone labial to the implant, labio-palatal ridge reduction, and crestal bone changes were measured via CBCT after 1 year. Volumetric analysis of linear labial soft tissue contour, interdental, and mid-facial soft tissue level changes, and total volume loss (mm3) were measured after 1 year.

RESULTS

Similar PES was observed in the CTG (12.53 ± 1.13) and DZ (12.13 ± 1.55) groups, with no significant difference (p = 0.42). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences found between the two groups in labio-palatal bone reduction (mm&%), interdental papillae, and mid-facial gingival levels (p > 0.05). However, the mean vertical crestal bone changes in the CTG and DZ groups were -1.1 ± 0.6 mm and 0.2 ± 1.0 mm, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0002). Moreover, CTG revealed less linear and total volume (mm3) loss in the labial soft tissue which was statistically significant compared to DZ (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Both groups demonstrated the same PES, nevertheless, volumetric analysis revealed twice total labial volume loss in DZ compared to CTG. It might be concluded that the use of CTG with IIP caused less horizontal reduction in the supra-implant complex compared to the DZ.

Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration

AIM

To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Dental Restorations

Fulfilling a patient's request for a healthy, functional and esthetic smile represents a daily challenge for dental practitioners [...].