Clinical and histological wound healing patterns of collagen-based substitutes: An experimental randomized controlled trial in standardized palatal defects in humans.

AIM: To evaluate the progression of wound healing of standardized palatal defects in groups using three different collagen-based wound dressings and a control group, in terms of wound closure, pain perception and descriptive histology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were enrolled in this experimental study, in whom four palatal defects were created. The defects (6 mm diameter, 3 mm depth) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment modalities: C (control), MG (Mucograft®), MD (mucoderm®) and FG (Fibro-Gide®). Photographs were taken, and pain assessment was performed before and after treatment and at 5, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 16 days after surgery. All participants wore a palatal splint for a duration of 16 days. RESULTS: All groups achieved complete wound closure at 14 days. The percentage of the remaining open wound on day 7 amounted to 49.3% (C; interquartile range [IQR]: 22.6), 70.1% (FG; IQR: 20.7), 56.8% (MD; IQR: 26.3) and 62.2% (MG; IQR: 34.4). Statistically significant differences were found between FG and C (p =.01) and between MD and FG (p =.04). None of the participants rated pain higher than 4 out of 10 during the entire study period. CONCLUSIONS: Collagen-based wound dressings provide coverage of open defects, albeit without acceleration of wound closure or reduction of pain. FG (which is not intended for open oral wounds) showed slower wound closure compared to C and MD.

Augmentation of keratinized tissue using autogenous soft-tissue grafts and collagen-based soft-tissue substitutes at teeth and dental implants: Histological findings in a pilot pre-clinical study.

AIM: To histomorphometrically assess three treatment modalities for gaining keratinized tissue (KT) at teeth and at dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five dogs, the distal roots of the mandibular second, third and fourth premolars were extracted. Dental implants were placed at the distal root areas 2 months later. After another 2 months, KT augmentation was performed at both distal (implants) and at mesial root (teeth) areas in the presence (wKT groups) or absence (w/oKT groups) of a KT band at the mucosal/gingival level. Three treatment modalities were applied randomly: apically positioned flap only (APF), free gingival grafts (FGGs) and xenogeneic collagen matrices (XCMs). A combination of the above produced six groups. Two months later, tissue sections were harvested and analysed histomorphometrically. RESULTS: The median KT height and length were greatest at implants with FGG in both wKT (3.7 and 5.1 mm, respectively) and w/oKT groups (3.7 and 4.6 mm), and at teeth with FGG in wKT groups (3.7 and 6.1 mm) and with APF in the w/oKT groups (3.9 and 4.4 mm). The XCM and APF produced more favourable results at teeth than at implants. CONCLUSIONS: FGG was advantageous in gaining KT, especially at implants.

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.

Flapless early implant placement into the uncalcified provisional matrix-Does it lead to osseointegration of the implant? A preclinical study.

AIM: To test whether early implant placement into the extraction socket containing an uncalcified provisional matrix leads to successful osseointegration and stable marginal bone levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six mongrel dogs, the mandibular molars were extracted. Three weeks later, early implant placement was performed according to three experimental protocols: (i) flapless implant placement with preservation of the provisional matrix; (ii) flap elevation, socket debridement and implant placement; and (iii) flap elevation, socket debridement, implant placement and guided bone regeneration (GBR). One untreated extraction socket served as a control group. Data analyses were based on histologic slides 3 months after implant placement. RESULTS: There were no differences in bone-to-implant contact between the three experimental groups (66.97%, 58.89% and 60.89%, respectively) (inter-group comparison p = .42). Marginal bone levels, first bone-to-implant contact as well as the thickness of the connective tissue did not reveal any significant differences between the groups (p = .85, .60 and .65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Flapless early implant placement into posterior extraction sockets was as effective as an open flap approach in conjunction with GBR. Mineralization of the socket seems to occur irrespective of the presence of dental implants or biomaterials.

Randomized controlled multi-centre study comparing shorter dental implants (6 mm) to longer dental implants (11-15 mm) in combination with sinus floor elevation procedures: 10-year data.

AIM: To compare implant survival and complication rates between shorter and standard-length implants with sinus augmentation and restored with single crowns, at 10 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred and one patients (137 implants) with a ridge height of 5-7 mm in the posterior maxilla were randomly assigned to two treatment modalities: shorter implants (6 mm) (group short [GS]) or standard-length implants (11-15 mm) with sinus grafting (group graft [GG]). Following the insertion of final restorations, patients were regularly recalled for up to 10 years. Assessed outcomes encompassed implant survival, marginal bone levels (MBLs), biological and technical parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (OHIP-49 = Oral Health Impact Profile). Non-parametric statistical analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: For the 5- to 10-year follow-up period, 77 patients with 105 implants (GS: 36 patients/48 implants; GG: 41/57) were available for re-examination (drop-out rate 21%). Implant survival rates at the patient level were 96.0% (GS; 2 failures) and 100% (GG) (inter-group p = .24). Median MBLs amounted to 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 3.25; GS) and 0.00 mm (min 0.00; max 4.55; GG) (inter-group p = .73). Technical complications predominantly occurred within the first 5 years (inter-group p > .05). Peri-implantitis rates were 4.2% (GS) and 13.3% (GG) (intergroup p = .37). Median OHIP-49 scores were 7.00 (0.00; 39.00; GS) and 9.00 (0.00; 196; GG) (inter-group p = .61) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on similar 10-year implant survival rates, reduced patient morbidity and lower costs, the use of shorter dental implants might well serve as an alternative treatment concept to longer implants placed in conjunction with sinus grafting for patients with a limited ridge height in the posterior maxilla. Study register: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01030523.

Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of zirconia and titanium implants in the posterior zone after 1 year of loading-A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of posterior zirconia and titanium implants at 1 year of implant loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial with a within-subject controlled design. Each patient received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal positions randomized. The implant restoration consisted of multiple layered zirconia, with the buccal aspect veneered. In group Zr, the restoration was intraorally cemented onto the one-piece Zr implant, whereas in group Ti, the restoration was extraorally cemented onto the titanium base abutment and intraorally screw-retained onto the Ti implant. Examinations were performed following restoration delivery at baseline (BL) and at 1 year. Measurements included clinical parameters, radiographic outcomes (MBL) and PROMs. RESULTS: Bleeding on probing showed an increase from BL to 1 year (34 ± 30% for Zr; 25 ± 21% for Ti). MBL remained stable with minimal changes from BL to 1 year, measuring 0.1 ± 0.4 mm (mean ± SD) for Zr and -0.1 ± 0.7 mm for Ti. Veneering fractures were the most frequent technical complication and amounted to 17.5% in group Zr and 5% in group Ti (p = .100). Patients preferred Zr implants for their soft tissue color, with a significant difference in perception between patients and clinicians (p < .017). CONCLUSION: The study showed that both Zr and Ti implants had similar clinical outcomes, despite a high prevalence of mucositis and a few technical complications. Both implant types demonstrated stable marginal bone levels and similar patient-reported outcome measures.

A 7.5-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns.

OBJECTIVES: To compare marginal bone levels, biological, and technical outcomes of screw-retained versus cemented all-ceramic implant-supported zirconia-based single crowns after an observation period of 7.5 years. METHODS: Forty-four single implants in the esthetic zone in 44 patients (22 females, 22 males) were randomly assigned to two types of restorations: SR (screw-retained); veneered one-piece zirconia abutment and CR (cement-retained); veneered lithium disilicate crown intraorally cemented on a one-piece zirconia abutment. Patients were recalled annually up to 7.5 years and survival rates, biological, and technical parameters assessed. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients attended the 7.5-year follow-up visit (17 SR group, 14 CR group). The survival rate on the restorative level was 77.5% (74.0% CR, 81.0% SR, p = .6399). Median marginal bone loss (MBL) values yielded -0.073 mm (-0.305; 0.238) in the CR and -0.215 mm (-0.500; 0.555) in the SR group (intergroup p = .6194). Mean bleeding on probing (BoP) values were significantly in favor of group SR with 20 ± 17% compared to 40 ± 22% in group CR (p = .011). The overall biological complication rate amounted to 27.5% (42.1% CR, 14.3% SR, p = .0775), whereas the technical complication rate was 32.5% (42.1% CR, 23.8% SR, p = .314). In total, CR restorations showed significantly more complications (84.2% for CR, 38.1% for SR, p = .0041). CONCLUSION: One-piece zirconia-based single crowns on two-piece dental implants exhibited a high rate of technical and biological complications at 7.5 years of follow-up. Cemented restorations revealed significant higher rates of bleeding on probing and total complications compared to screw-retained restorations.

Enhancing guided bone regeneration with cross-linked collagen-conjugated xenogeneic bone blocks and membrane fixation: A preclinical in vivo study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether combining cross-linked (CL) collagen-integrated xenogeneic bone blocks stabilized with the fixation of resorbable collagen membranes (CM) can enhance guided bone regeneration (GBR) in the overaugmented calvarial defect model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four circular defects with a diameter of 8 mm were prepared in the calvarium of 13 rabbits. Defects were randomly assigned to receive one of the following treatments: (i) non-cross-linked (NCL) porcine-derived collagen-embedded bone block covered by a CM without fixation (NCL + unfix group); (ii) NCL bone block covered by CM with fixation using bone-tack (NCL + fix group); (iii) cross-linked (CL) porcine-derived collagen-embedded bone block covered by CM without fixation (CL + unfix group); and (iv) CL bone block covered by CM with fixation using bone-tack fixation (CL + fix group). The efficacy of GBR was assessed through histological and molecular analyses after 2 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: At 2 weeks, there were no significant differences in histologically measured areas of newly formed bone among the groups. At 8 weeks, however, the CL + fix group exhibited a larger area of new bone (5.08 ± 1.09 mm2, mean ± standard deviation) compared to the NCL + unfix (1.62 ± 0.42 mm2; p < .0083), NCL + fix (3.97 ± 1.39 mm2) and CL + unfix (2.55 ± 1.04 mm2) groups. Additionally, the expression levels of tumour necrosis factor-alpha, fibroblast growth factor-2, vascular endothelial growth factor, osteocalcin and calcitonin receptor were significantly higher in the CL + fix group compared to the other three groups (p < .0083). CONCLUSION: Cross-linked bone blocks stabilized with collagen membrane fixation can significantly enhance GBR.

Does an untreated peri-implant dehiscence defect affect the progression of peri-implantitis?: A preclinical in vivo experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the early impact of plaque accumulation in a buccal dehiscence defect on peri-implant marginal bone resorption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six male Mongrel dogs, four dental implants were placed in the posterior maxilla on both sides (two implants per side). Based on the group allocation, each implant was randomly assigned to one of the following four groups to decide whether buccal dehiscence defect was prepared and whether silk ligation was applied at 8 weeks post-implant placement for peri-implantitis induction: UC (no defect without ligation); UD (defect without ligation); LC (no defect with ligation); and LD (defect with ligation) groups. Eight weeks after disease induction, the outcomes from radiographic and histologic analyses were statistically analyzed (p < .05). RESULTS: Based on radiographs, the exposed area of implant threads was smallest in group UC (p < .0083). Based on histology, both the distances from the implant platform to the first bone-to-implant contact point and to the bone crest were significantly longer in the LD group (p < .0083). In the UD group, some spontaneous bone fill occurred from the base of the defect at 8 weeks after implant placement. The apical extension of inflammatory cell infiltrate was significantly more prominent in the LD and LC groups compared to the UC group (p < .0083). CONCLUSION: Plaque accumulated on the exposed implant surface had a negative impact on maintaining the peri-implant marginal bone level, especially when there was a dehiscence defect around the implant.

Ridge preservation using a self-retaining block type bone substitute for extraction sockets with buccal dehiscence defects - A preclinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a self-retaining block-type bone substitute (srBB) on the dimensional stability of the horizontal ridge width at the coronal level in a buccal dehiscence model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four box-shaped bone defects with a buccal dehiscence were surgically prepared in the partially edentulous mandible (n = 6). Experimental biomaterials were randomly assigned to each site: (1) Control group: no treatment, (2) particle-type bone substitute (PBS) group, (3) collagenated soft block bone substitute (csBB) group, and (4) self-retaining synthetic block bone (srBB) group. In all grafted groups, a collagen membrane covered the biomaterials. At 16 weeks, clinical, histological, and radiographic analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three of the six blocks in the srBB group became exposed and fell out during the first week after surgery. Therefore, the remaining three specimens were renamed RsrBB group. The RsrBB group showed an increase horizontal ridge compared to the pristine bone width at 2-4 mm below the CEJ, while the other groups showed resorption (augmented width at 2 mm below: 4.2, 42.4, 36.2, and 110.1% in the control, PBS, csBB, and RsrBB groups, respectively). The mineralized bone area was largest in the RsrBB group (4.74, 3.44, 5.67, and 7.77 mm2 in the control, PBS, csBB, and RsrBB groups, respectively.). CONCLUSIONS: The srBB group demonstrated the highest volume stability at the coronal level. These findings would potentially suggest that self-retaining block bone substitute might be a good candidate for alveolar ridge preservation.

Minimal invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation at dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcome measures.

The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. Comprehensive and systematic literature searches were performed until December 2021. A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria (PICO): In patients with dental implants undergoing soft tissue augmentation (P), do soft tissue substitutes (I) compared to autogenous soft tissue graft (SCTG [subepithelial connective tissue graft]) (C) limit the post-operative morbidity and other patient reported-outcomes measures (O). Randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective-, retrospective- and case-series studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible and the results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 29 clinical studies were included. For mucosal thickness gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 14.91 Visual Analog Scale [VAS] units; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.42-23.40; P < .0006) based on a 0-100 VAS scale. Based on a 0-10 VAS scale, a borderline significance of pain reduction was found when soft tissue substitutes were applied (n = 4; WMD = 1.62 VAS units; 95% CI 0.01-3.23; P = .05). For keratinized tissue gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception after keratinized tissue augmentation compared to SCTG based on a 0-100 VAS scale (n = 2; WMD = 21.43 VAS units; 95% CI 12.58-30.28; P < .0001). Based on the 0-10 VAS scale, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain as compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 1.65 VAS units; 95% CI 0.66-2.64; P = .001). Regarding pain medication, soft tissue substitutes required less painkillers (n = 6; WMD = 1.56 tablets; 95% CI 1.22-1.91; P < .00001) after soft tissue augmentation. The surgery time was significantly reduced when soft tissue substitutes were used (n = 5; WMD = 10.9 minutes; 95% CI 4.60-17.19; P < .00001). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, aesthetics, and quality of life (OHIP-14) between soft tissue substitutes and autogenous grafts following soft tissue augmentation at implants sites. Soft tissue substitutes, compared to autogenous grafts, significantly improve PROMs following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. Soft tissue substitutes can reduce pain perception, amounts of painkillers and surgery time while achieving similar levels of patient´s satisfaction as autogenous grafts without impairing the clinical outcomes. The current evidence indicates that they constitute a valid and reliable alternative to minimize the invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites.

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: To identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The protocol of this Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified, and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk-of-bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 non-RCTs, and 33 case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, aesthetic, histological, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research on peri-implant soft tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally under-reported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Outcome measures and methods of assessment of soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy: A systematic review of clinical studies published in the last 10 years.

AIM: The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and the choice of primary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSION: Clinical research on peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation has progressively increased in the last 10 years. Although clinical outcome measures were the most frequently reported outcomes in the selected literature, trends in the field are indicative of a shift from traditional clinical assessment methods to the use of digital technologies. PROMs were generally underreported but should be considered an integral methodological component in future clinical studies.

Soft tissue contour changes at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting in the esthetic zone: A retrospective case-control study with a 12-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the volumetric changes and peri-implant health at implant sites with and without previous soft tissue grafting over a 12-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received dental implants and simultaneously guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone (15-25) for dental rehabilitation. Three months following implant placement, 8 patients (test) received an additional subepithelial connective tissue graft, whereas 10 patients (control) did not receive any additional treatment. One week after prothesis delivery and at the 5 and 12 years follow-up examination, impressions were taken. Obtained casts were processed for profilometric and linear analyses. The mean distance (MD) in the mid-buccal area between the two surfaces was considered the primary outcome. Peri-implant health was assessed based on clinical and radiographic data. RESULTS: Nine female and 7 male patients were re-assessed after a median follow-up time of 144.5 months (Min: 114.8; Max: 213.0). The median reduction of MD amounted to -0.81 mm (Min: -1.39; Max: 0.52) in the test group and -0.56 mm (Min: -0.93; Max: 0.11) in the control group, (intergroup comparison p = .607, CI 95%: -0.760/0.530). None of the implants was diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Six tests and two control implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (p = .103). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of included patients, similar results in terms of volumetric, linear changes, and peri-implant conditions could be detected at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting over a period of 12 years.

Efficacy of a collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation after implant placement compared to connective tissue grafts: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether soft tissue volume augmentation using a collagen matrix (VCMX) leads to noninferior results in terms of gain of mucosal thickness at single implant sites, compared to connective tissue grafts (SCTG). METHODS: The study was designed as a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial. Subjects in need of soft tissue volume augmentation at single tooth implant sites were consecutively recruited at nine centers. The deficient mucosal thickness at the implant sites (one per patient) was augmented by applying either a VCMX or a SCTG. Patients were examined at 120 days (abutment connection = primary endpoint), 180 days (final restoration), and 360 days (1-year after insertion of the final restoration). Outcome measures included: transmucosal probing of the mucosal thickness (crestal = primary outcome), profilometric measurements of the tissue volume, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). RESULTS: Out of the 88 patients, 79 attended the one-year follow-up. The median increase of the crestal mucosal thickness between pre-augmentation and 120 days was 0.3 ± 2.1 mm in the VCMX group and 0.8 ± 1.6 mm in the SCTG group (p = .455). Non-inferiority of the VCMX compared to the SCTG was not observed. The respective numbers at the buccal aspect amounted to 0.9 ± 2.0 mm (VCMX) and 1.1 ± 1.4 mm (SCTG; p = .431). PROMs including pain perception favored the VCMX group. CONCLUSION: It remains inconclusive whether soft tissue augmentation using a VCMX is noninferior to SCTG in terms of crestal mucosal thickening at single implant sites. However, the use of collagen matrices favors PROMs especially pain perception, while achieving similar buccal volume gains along with comparable clinical and aesthetic parameters to SCTG.

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical, radiographic, biological and technical long-term outcomes of two types of dental implants over a period of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight implants were placed in 64 patients, randomly allocated to one of two manufacturers (AST and STM). All implants were loaded with fixed restorations. Outcome measures were assessed at implant insertion (Ti), at baseline examination (TL), at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 (T10) years. Data analysis included survival, bone level changes, complications and clinical measures. RESULTS: Re-examination was performed in 43 patients (23 AST and 20 STM) at 10 years. The implant level analysis was based on 37 (AST) and 32 (STM) implants. Survival rates of 100% were obtained for both groups. The median changes of the marginal bone levels between baseline and T10 (the primary endpoint) amounted to a loss of 0.07 mm for group AST and a gain of 0.37 mm for group STM (intergroup p = 0.008). Technical complications occurred in 27.0% of the implants in group AST and in 15.6% in group STM. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 29.7% (AST) and 50.1% (STM). The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 0% (AST) and 6.3% (STM). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the implant system used, the survival rates after 10 years were high. Minimal bone level changes were observed, statistically significant but clinically negligible in favor of STM. Technical complications were more frequently encountered in group AST, while group STM had a higher prevalence of peri-implant mucositis.

Tissue integration and biodegradation of soft tissue substitutes with and without compression: an experimental study in the rat.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al2O3 were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes.

The 3D emergence profile on implant-supported restorations: A method for evaluating restorative angles.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Emerging evidence indicates that the emergence profile and subsequent restorative angle play a crucial role in clinical outcomes and can potentially affect the development and progression of peri-implant diseases. However, the traditional evaluation of the emergence profile and angle has been limited to mesial and distal sites using periapical x-rays, without considering the buccal sites. PURPOSE: To describe a novel 3D method to estimate the emergence profile and restorative angles around single implant-supported crowns including buccal sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 implant-supported crowns (11 molars, 8 premolars, 8 central incisors and 1 canine) were extra-orally scanned using an intraoral scanner and the STL files produced were imported into a 3D software. The crown/abutment interface of each crown was delineated, and apico-coronal lines were automatically drawn following the shape of the crown. Three reference points were defined on the apico-coronal lines at the transition edge of the biological (BC) and the esthetic zone (EC) and the resulting angles were then calculated. The reliability of the measurements (2D and 3D) were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: In anterior restorations, the mean angle of the esthetic zone amounted to 162 ± 14° at mesial sites, to 140 ± 10° at buccal sites and to 163 ± 11° at distal sites. The corresponding angles at the biological zones, amounted to 155 ± 13° at mesial sites, 139 ± 15° at buccal sites and 157 ± 5° at distal sites. In posterior restorations, the mean angle of the esthetic zone amounted to 162 ± 12° at mesial sites, to 157 ± 13 at buccal sites and to 162 ± 11 at distal sites. The corresponding angles at the biological zone, amounted to 158 ± 8 at mesial sites, 150 ± 15° at buccal sites and 156 ± 10 at distal sites. The ICC for all measurements ranged between 0.77 and 0.99 indicating a good intra-examiner reliability. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study, the 3D analysis seems to be a reliable and applicable method for the quantitative evaluation of the emergence profile in daily practice. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to assess whether a 3D analysis with the ensuing the emergence profile serves as a predictor for clinical outcomes. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The development and implementation of a 3D workflow will provide technicians and dentists with the ability to assess the restorative angle of implant-supported restorations during the provisional phase and the final restoration. This approach may help achieve an aesthetically pleasing restoration while minimizing potential clinical complications.

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS: The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS: Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Management and prevention of soft tissue complications in implant dentistry.

The management and prevention of soft tissue complications is of key importance in modern implant dentistry and influences biologic and esthetic outcomes. The assessment of the soft tissue conditions from a quantitative and qualitative perspective should, therefore, be part of the overall treatment plan. Such an assessment dictates a potential indication as well as an ideal time point for additional soft tissue management. A proper risk assessment and management of the soft tissues at the planned implant site are of key importance prior to any implant-related surgery. Cases with peri-implant soft tissue complications generally involve: (a) a lack of attached and keratinized mucosa; (b) insufficient volume; (c) development of mucosal dehiscences; or (d) a combination of (a), (b), and (c). In case of soft tissue deficiencies, these should be addressed as early as possible to increase the predictability of the surgical interventions. This article reviews the main causes for peri-implant soft tissue complications and presents different therapeutic options for the management of various clinical scenarios.