Effect of free gingival graft before implant placement on peri-implant health and soft tissue changes: a randomized controlled trial

Hongqiang Ye,Chaoling Zheng,Wenjie Hu,Yongsheng Zhou,Yunsong Liu,Shimin Wang

doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01818-3

Hongqiang Ye, Chaoling Zheng + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01818-3

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundTo evaluate the clinical outcome and changes in posterior buccal soft tissue following implant restoration in groups with and without a free gingival graft (FGG) before implant placement.MethodsTwenty-six individuals who required implant restoration and displayed lack of keratinized mucosa (KM) were recruited and assigned to the FGG group (with FGG before implant placement) or Control group (without FGG before implant placement) randomly. A screw-retained conventional implant restoration was performed for each patient. Peri-implant soft tissue was captured by an intraoral scanner and analyzed by an image processing software. Clinical parameters (plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and bleeding on probing) were assessed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Buccal soft tissue changes (mucosal margin, soft tissue thickness, and width of keratinized mucosa) on the buccal side of implant site were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test were used to analyze significant difference between groups at each time point (α = 0.05).ResultsThe clinical parameters were lower in the FGG group than that in the Control group, although there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). Peri-implant soft tissue collapsed and the changes (mucosal margin and soft tissue thickness) were significantly greater in the Control group than the FGG group (P < 0.05). Width of KM was larger in the FGG group than the Control group, although there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionsMinimal peri-implant soft tissue changes occurred in two groups. Performing FGG before implant placement is a viable procedure to maintain peri-implant soft tissue but might not affect peri-implant health during 12 months follow-up. However, small sample size must be considered.Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR2000037954; Date of registration: 6 September 2020).

Highlights

To evaluate the clinical outcome and changes in posterior buccal soft tissue following implant restoration in groups with and without a free gingival graft (FGG) before implant placement
Continuous patients who required implant restoration were recruited according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) age ≥ 20 years old [23]; (2) no system disease or active periodontitis; (3) plaque index and bleeding index < 25%; (4) posterior teeth loss with a medium to thick gingival biotype [24]; (5) Width of keratinized mucosa (KM) on the buccal side of the implant site < 2 mm before implant placement; and (6) fully autonomous behavior and expression ability, with good compliance
The clinical parameters were lower in the FGG group than that in the Control group, there were no significant differences between the two groups (PI: P = 0.906; Gingival index (GI): P = 0.805; Probing depth (PD): P = 0.201; Bleeding on probing (BOP): P = 0.606)

Summary

Introduction

To evaluate the clinical outcome and changes in posterior buccal soft tissue following implant restoration in groups with and without a free gingival graft (FGG) before implant placement. The incidence rate of complications (mechanical and biological, et al.) is increasing as implants continuous to be used. Biological complications are called peri-implant diseases [2] which include peri-implant. Peri-implant diseases are inflammation of peri-implant tissues [5] whose maintenance is a challenge to dentists and patients. Lack of keratinized mucosa (KM) is a potential risk to peri-implant diseases [6]. The role of width of KM in maintaining peri-implant health is a controversial topic [7], several studies showed that peri-implant state and plaque control with adequate KM was better than implant lacking KM [8, 9]. It has been reported that at least 2 mm of KM around implant is positive to maintain peri-implant health [10] and implant with < 2 mm is more vulnerable to peri-implant diseases [11]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion