ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Postextraction bone grafting and implant placement help preserve alveolar bone volume. Collagen wound dressings and soft tissue graft substitutes may help protect extraction socket bone grafts and provide better gingival contours. This randomized, controlled, multicenter, and double-blinded study was conducted to compare a control (wound dressing) and a test (soft tissue graft) substitute in nearly intact extraction sockets. Both test and control sockets were grafted with a xenogeneic bone graft. Graft containment, extraction socket soft tissue gap closure, gingival contour, and gingival thickness were examined over 16 weeks, at which time implants were placed. Healing was uneventful for both groups, and there was no significant difference (P < .05) between the times required to close the extraction socket soft tissue gap (~80% of sites closed by 8 weeks). Bone grafts were covered and contained longer in the test group (~4 weeks vs ~2 weeks), with less contour disruption out to 4 weeks; however, at implant placement, soft tissue contours in both groups were comparable, and soft tissue thicknesses were not significantly different.
