Harvest graft substitute for soft tissue volume augmentation around existing implants: A randomized, controlled and blinded multicenter trial

被引:0
|
作者
Clem, Donald S. [1 ,2 ,5 ]
McClain, Pamela K. [1 ]
McGuire, Michael K. [1 ]
Richardson, Chris R. [1 ]
Santarelli, Greg A. [1 ]
Schallhorn, Rachel A. [1 ]
Scheyer, E. Todd [1 ]
Gunsolley, John C. [1 ,3 ]
Morelli, Thiago [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] McGuire Inst iMc Practice Based Clin Res Network, Houston, TX USA
[2] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr San Antonio, San Antonio, TX USA
[3] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Sch Dent, Richmond, VA USA
[4] Univ North Carolina Chapel Hill, Sch Dent, Dept Periodontol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[5] Regenerat Solut, 130 Laguna Rd,Suite B, Fullerton, CA 92835 USA
关键词
dental implants; esthetics; grafts; pain; patient reported outcomes; patient satisfaction; DEFECTS;
D O I
10.1002/JPER.23-0305
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: Using a single-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter, practice-based clinical trial, a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) was compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for soft tissue augmentation around existing dental implants.Methods: Sixty patients (31 VCMX and 31 CTG) were included. The primary outcome was a soft tissue thickness change 3 mm below the gingival margin (GM). Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, such as keratinized tissue widths (KTw), probing pocket depths, and pink esthetic scores, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).Results: There were no significant differences between test and control patient demographics or clinical measures throughout the 1-year study. VCMX "grafts" were by design larger than CTG, and surgery time was less (27% less, p = 0.0005). Three millimeters below the GM (primary endpoint), tissue thickness increase was noninferior for VCMX compared with CTG (0.93 +/- 0.80 mm vs. 1.10 +/- 0.51 mm, respectively), inferior (by 0.25 mm) at 1 mm, and noninferior at 5 mm. Postoperative pain was significantly less for VCMX patients (p < 0.0001), but all other PRO measures, including esthetics and satisfaction, improved similarly for both therapies.Conclusions: Given the inclusion criteria for this study, namely soft tissue augmentation around existing implants with some evidence of KTw and minimal recession, VCMX provided soft tissue thickness and volume increases similar (noninferior) to CTG. Clinical measures and PRO were similar between therapies-site sensitivity and esthetics improved similarly for both therapies-but surgery time and pain following surgery were significantly less for VCMX.
引用
收藏
页码:740 / 748
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 1-year results
    Cosyn, Jan
    Eeckhout, Celien
    De Bruyckere, Thomas
    Eghbali, Aryan
    Vervaeke, Stijn
    Younes, Faris
    Christiaens, Veronique
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2022, 49 (09) : 911 - 921
  • [42] A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-Year results
    Surdiacourt, Lenz
    Christiaens, Veronique
    De Bruyckere, Thomas
    De Buyser, Stefanie
    Eghbali, Aryan
    Vervaeke, Stijn
    Younes, Faris
    Cosyn, Jan
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2025, 52 (01) : 92 - 101
  • [43] A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-month results
    Cosyn, Jan
    Eeckhout, Celien
    Christiaens, Veronique
    Eghbali, Aryan
    Vervaeke, Stijn
    Younes, Faris
    De Bruyckere, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2021, 48 (12) : 1502 - 1515
  • [44] Maxillary sinus floor augmentation with autogenous bone graft compared with composite grafts: A one-year single-blinded randomized controlled trial
    Starch-Jensen, Thomas
    Ahmad, Marianne
    Bruun, Niels Henrik
    Becktor, Jonas Peter
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (06) : 652 - 667
  • [45] Soft tissue augmentation of ridge defects in the maxillary anterior area using two different methods: a randomized controlled clinical trial
    Akcali, A.
    Schneider, D.
    Unlu, F.
    Bicakci, N.
    Kose, T.
    Hammerle, C. H. F.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2015, 26 (06) : 688 - 695
  • [46] Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate a Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix as an Alternative to Free Gingival Grafting for Oral Soft Tissue Augmentation
    McGuire, Michael K.
    Scheyer, E. Todd
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2014, 85 (10) : 1333 - 1341
  • [47] Influence of Implant-Abutment Interface Design on Bone and Soft Tissue Levels Around Immediately Placed and Restored Single-Tooth Implants: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
    Pieri, Francesco
    Aldini, Nicolo Nicoli
    Marchetti, Claudio
    Corinaldesi, Giuseppe
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2011, 26 (01) : 169 - 178
  • [48] Ultrasound assessment of soft tissue augmentation around implants in the aesthetic zone using a connective tissue graft and xenogeneic collagen matrix-1-year randomised follow-up
    Puzio, Monika
    Blaszczyszyn, Artur
    Hadzik, Jakub
    Dominiak, Marzena
    ANNALS OF ANATOMY-ANATOMISCHER ANZEIGER, 2018, 217 : 129 - 141
  • [49] A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Controlled Trial Comparing Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen Versus Hydrocodone and Acetaminophen for Soft Tissue Hand Procedures
    Weinheimer, Kent
    Michelotti, Brett
    Silver, Jeremy
    Taylor, Kenneth
    Payatakes, Alexander
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2019, 44 (05): : 387 - 393
  • [50] Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft for Treatment of Gingival Recessions With and Without Enamel Matrix Derivative: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
    Rasperini, Giulio
    Roccuzzo, Mario
    Francetti, Luca
    Acunzo, Raffaele
    Consonni, Dario
    Silvestri, Maurizio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2011, 31 (02) : 133 - 139