Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation at immediately placed implants: a prospective clinical trial.

The advantages of immediate implant placement for patients include a reduced number of surgical procedures and a shorter overall treatment time. Disadvantages include a higher risk of aesthetic complications. The aim of this study was to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) used for soft tissue augmentation in combination with immediate implant placement without provisionalization. Forty-eight patients requiring a single implant-supported rehabilitation were selected and assigned to one of two surgical procedures: immediate implant with SCTG (SCTG group) or immediate implant with XCM (XCM group). Marginal changes in the peri-implant soft tissue and the facial soft tissue thickness (FSTT) were assessed after 12 months. Secondary outcomes included peri-implant health status, aesthetics, patient satisfaction, and perceived pain. All of the implants placed were successfully osseointegrated, resulting in 1-year survival and success rates of 100%. The patients in the SCTG group had a significantly lower mid-buccal marginal level (MBML) recession (P = 0.021) and a greater increase in FSTT (P < 0.001) than the patients in the XCM group. Using xenogeneic collagen matrix during immediate implant placement significantly increased FSTT from the baseline, leading to good aesthetic and patient satisfaction results. However, the connective tissue graft yielded better MBML and FSTT results.

Quality of Life of Patients with Mandibular Third Molars and Mild Pericoronitis. A Comparison between Two Different Treatments: Extraction or Periodontal Approach.

Background: The extraction of the mandibular third molar is one of the most frequent intervention in oral surgery. A common indication for wisdom tooth extraction is represented by pericoronitis, which can determine discomfort and pain in patients. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of patients' quality of life by comparing a surgical approach with a periodontal approach. METHODS: We evaluated 82 patients diagnosed with pericoronitis that occurred at the third molar site. In total, 41 of them received a periodontal treatment and 41 were treated by extraction. The quality of life (QoL) of the patients was assessed by using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) index. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in the study and were followed up for 6 months. Of the patients, 41 received a periodontal treatment and 41 underwent surgical extraction. At the baseline, the OHIP-14 scores of the surgical group were higher (19.71, SD 9.90) than the periodontal group (14.41, SD 8.71). At 1 week, there was a reduction in terms of OHIP-14 in both groups, but the periodontal group showed lower values (12.3, SD 8.11). Long-term follow-up showed a reduction of the OHIP-14 values, with a difference in favor of the surgical group (0.10, SD 0.45). However, there was a reduction in OHIP-14 scores in both groups. CONCLUSION: Although the periodontal treatment offered a rapid improvement in terms of quality of life during the first week after the treatment, after 1 month and 6 months, the extraction of the mandibular third molar extraction remained the best treatment, removing the occurrence of re-inflammation of the site.