Comparative analysis of xenogeneic collagen matrix and autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft to increase soft tissue volume around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The gold standard for a soft tissue augmentation around implants is a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG), but the xenogeneic collagen matrices (XCM) started to be used as an alternative. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness XCM in comparison to CTG for the increasing the thickness of the soft tissue around implants. DATA: All studies included at least two parallel groups comparing the use of CTG and XCM with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. As the primary outcome, the amount of soft tissue thickness gain after soft tissue augmentation with XCM or CTG was assessed. Secondary outcomes were clinical and patient-related outcomes; evaluation of aesthetic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and complications. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was applied whenever possible. The quality of the evidence of studies including in meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach. SOURCE: A systematic literature search up to January 2022 was conducted using the following electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS, eLIBRARY.RU. Unpublished researches, the gray literature, nonprofit reports, government studies and other materials were reviewed electronically using an EASY search. An additional manual search was carried out in November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 1376 articles from the initial search, 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (306 patients and 325 implants) were included in this systematic review, and 7 studies were part of the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that XCM is less effective than the CTG in increasing soft tissue thickness around dental implants. However, XCM also provides soft tissue thickness gain and can be recommended for use in various clinical situations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that autologous grafts are more effective than collagen matrices in increasing soft tissue thickness, however, the latter can be used as an alternative. Studies included in previous systematic reviews varied in design, which could lead to limitations. The present systematic review and meta-analysis includes for the first time only randomized controlled clinical trials with collagen matrix of xenogeneic origin in the test group. Tight eligibility criteria were established, and the main parameter studied was soft tissue thickness. It was found that xenogeneic collagen matrix is effective for increasing soft tissue thickness around dental implants, however, the results obtained using an autogenous connective tissue graft are superior.

Connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: a randomized-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) to increase soft tissue thickness at implant site. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized, parallel-group controlled investigation. Thirty patients underwent buccal soft tissue thickness augmentation at the stage of implant placement by two different methods: SCTG (control group) and XCM (test group). Primary outcome was the amount of buccal soft tissue thickness gain, 3 months after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the operation time, the amount of keratinized mucosa (KM), pain syndrome (PS), and patients' quality of life (QL). Histologic evaluation was also performed. RESULTS: The amount of soft tissue thickness gain was 1.55±0.11 mm in SCTG group, and 1.18±0.11mm in XCM group. The difference between the SCTG and XCM was -0.366 (-0.66 to -0.07; p=0.016). Operation time with XCM was 8.4 (3.737 to 13.06) min shorter than that with the SCTG (p=0.001). KT, PS, and QL for both groups were not statistically significantly different at any time point (p>0.05). At histological examination, the general picture in both groups was similar. No significant differences between the studied groups in most indices, except for the average and maximum formation thickness, cellularity of the basal, mitotic activity and also maximum length of rete ridges. CONCLUSION: Within limitations, this study demonstrates that the use of SCTG provides a statistically significant superior soft tissue thickness gain than XCM for soft tissue augmentation procedures around implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: XCM can be used as the method of choice for increasing the thickness of soft tissues.