Connective Tissue Graft Group Research Articles

The Effect of Connective Tissue Graft Compared to Concentrated Growth Factor Graft on Buccal Peri-Implant Gingival Thickness: A 12-month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BackgroundAttached gingival phenotype has a crucial impact on the implant's durability and its future success. PurposeThis study aims to measure and compare buccal peri-implant gingival thickness following grafting with connective tissue graft (CTG) and the concentrated growth factor graft (CGF).Study design, setting, sample: This is a split-mouth designed randomized controlled clinical study in which a total of 20 aged 18 to 55 have bilateral missing teeth in the maxillary premolar region with less than 2mm of healthy peri-implant gingival thickness. Patients were excluded if they were smokers, had poor oral hygiene, had uncontrolled widespread periodontal disease, or had a history of radiation treatment. The same surgical protocol was followed for each study participant, where an independent blinded medical practitioner assigned the first stage side to be treated with CTG, while the second stage side with CGF two weeks later. Exposure variableThe primary exposure variable of this study was the gingival grafting technique; CTG or CGF. Outcome variableThe primary outcome variable was the buccal peri-implant gingival thickness. Gingival thickness was measured at six different times; immediately before the procedure (T0), after 30 days (T1), after 45 days (T2), after 3 months (T3), after 6 months (T4), and after 12 months (T5). CovariatesThe covariates were age, sex general health, and periodontal status. AnalysisThe statistical analysis; repeated measures ANOVA test was used to compare the gingival thickness between the studied follow-up times within each group. The level of significance was set at ≤ 0.05. ResultsThe sample was composed of 40 treatment sites of 20 patients. The mean age of the sample was 32 years and 45% were male. The mean gingival thickness value of the CTG group was 1.62mm with a standard deviation (SD=0.18) compared to 1.28mm for the CGF group with (SD=0.20) and an overall P-value (0.001) at T5. Conclusions and relevanceCTG showed to have better gingival thickness than CGF in managing peri-implant buccal gingival thickness deficiency.

Xenogeneic collagen matrix vs. connective tissue graft for the treatment of multiple gingival recession: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review (SR) compared the effect of xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) vs. connective tissue graft (CTG) for the treatment of multiple gingival recession (MGR) Miller Class I and II or Cairo type I. Five databases were searched up to August 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical effects of XCM vs. CTG in the treatment of MGR. The random effects model of mean differences was used to determine reduction of gingival recession (GR), gain in keratinized tissue width (KTW), gain in gingival thickness (GT) and gain in clinical attachment level (CAL). The risk ratio was used to complete root coverage (CRC) at 6 and 12months. 10 RCTs, representing 1095 and 649 GR at 6 and 12months, respectively, were included in this SR. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in GR reduction, KTW gain GT gain or CAL gain between groups at 6months. However, at 12months of follow-up, differences favoring the control group were observed (p < 0.05). CRC was significantly higher in the CTG group at 6 and 12months. Regarding dentine hypersensitivity (DH), no statistically significant differences were found between groups at 6 and 12months of follow-up (p < 0.05). At 12months, CTG showed significantly superior clinical results in the treatment of MGR: however, this difference was not observed in the decrease of DH.

Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin and Connective Tissue Graft for Treating Marginal Tissue Recessions: A Randomized, Controlled Split-Mouth Study.

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) and connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating marginal tissue recessions. Fifteen patients with isolated bilateral maxillary gingival recessions were recruited for the study, with 30 defects. The defects were classified as Miller's class I/II gingival recession on the canine or premolar region. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, each receiving one of the two treatment techniques (A-PRF or CTG) on a different side of the maxilla in a split-mouth design. Clinical parameters such as recession height (RH), recession width (RW), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), a width of attached gingiva (WAG), and keratinized tissue height (KTH) were evaluated at baseline, 3, and 6 months. Changes in biotype, Recession Esthetic Score (RES), and Visual Analogue Score-Esthetics (VAS-E) were also evaluated at 6 months. Ethics approval number (Helsinki): PHRC/HC/877/21 and registered at the Clinical Trials Registry under the number NCT05267015 Results:At the end of 6 months, there was a statistically significant reduction in RH and RW in both groups, with the mean RC% of 69.2±22.91, and 88.66±33.18 in Groups I and II, respectively. Intergroup analysis showed statistically significant differences in recession parameters between groups at 3 and 6 months, with better outcomes for the CTG group. This study demonstrates that A-PRF and CTG effectively manage gingival recession defects. However, CTG resulted in better clinical outcomes in terms of reduction in recession height and width.

Effect of Connective Tissue Graft Following Immediate Implant Placement on Esthetic Outcomes at Maxillary Central Incisor Sites: A Long-Term Cohort Study.

The aim of this cohort study was to assess the effect of connective tissue graft (CTG) following immediate implant placement (IIP) at maxillary central incisors on esthetic outcomes, buccal bone thickness, soft tissue dimensional alterations, and patient-centered outcomes. Twenty-eight patients treated with IIP at maxillary central incisor sites with approximately 6 ± 4 years in function were divided according to the use of CTG (n = 17) or no CTG (n = 11). The primary variable of the study was the Pink and White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), evaluated in photographs taken before and after implant placement. The thickness of the buccal bone, midbuccal mucosal level (MBML) changes, and patient satisfaction were assessed and compared between the two groups. The results showed similar PES/WES before IIP between the CTG and no-CTG groups (13.5 ± 3.7 and 12.6 ± 3.2, respectively). After IIP, the PES/WES value in the CTG group was significantly higher (15 ± 2.5) than in the no-CTG group (12.1 ± 3.1) (P = .012). No significant differences in the buccal bone thickness, MBML, or patient satisfaction were observed in CTG and no-CTG groups. This study found that CTG following IIP and socket grafting promoted better esthetic outcomes.

Comparison between connective tissue graft and xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix to treat single gingival recession: A data reanalysis of randomized clinical trials.

There are few studies comparing xenogeneic acellular dermal matrixes (XDMs) with connective tissue graft (CTG) to treat single gingival recession (GR). The present study involved a reanalysis of previous studies and comparison of CTG or XDM to treat single RT1/GR. Fifty patients from three previous randomized clinical trials treated either by CTG (n=25) or XDM (n=25) were evaluated after 6-month. Clinical, patient-centered, and esthetic parameters were assessed. Pearson's correlation and regression analyses were also performed. Greater recession reduction (RecRed), percentage of root coverage (%RC), and complete root coverage (CRC) were observed in the CTG group (p ≤ 0.02). Gingival thickness (GT) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) gains were higher in the CTG group. The CTG group showed better esthetic at 6-month. Logistic analyses reported that GT([OR]=1.6473 ) and papilla height (PH) (OR=8.20) are predictors of CRC. GT*XDM interaction was a negative predictor of CRC (OR=7.105-5 ). GT at baseline acted as a predictor of RecRed in both groups (p=0.03). The XDM graft impacted RecRed and %RC negatively. Baseline PH was a predictor of %RC for both grafts. CTG was superior for treating RT1/GR, providing better root coverage outcomes and tissue gains over time. GT, PH, and graft type were classified as predictors of CRC. CTG presented better outcomes to treat single RT1 gingival recession when compared to the XDM.

Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures on tissue thickening around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The first focused question (FQ1) was: What is the efficacy of connective tissue graft (CTG), as compared to the absence of soft tissue grafting procedure, in terms of gain in peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) reported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs)? The second focused question (FQ2) was: What is the efficacy of CTG, as compared to soft tissue substitutes, in terms of gain in peri-implant STT reported by RCTs or CCTs? A manual and electronic search was performed for each question to identify RCTs and CCTs published up to July 2020. The primary outcome variable was changes in peri-implant STT and secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL), clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, changes in the position of peri-implant soft tissues, esthetic outcomes, and patient-related outcome measures (PROMs). For primary and secondary outcomes, data reporting mean values and standard deviations for each study were extracted. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences as well as 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. Eight trials were included to answer the first focused question and eight to answer the second one, providing data for 254 and 192 patients, respectively. For the first focused question, a statistically significant difference of 0.64mm in STT was found in favor of the grafted group (n=8; 95% CI [0.16; 1.13]; 95% PI [-1.06; 2.35]; p=.01). Moreover, sites treated with CTG exhibited statistically significant less recession than implants without a graft (n=4; WMD=0.50mm; 95% CI [0.19; 0.80]; 95% PI [-0.70; 1.69]; p<.001). For the second focused question, the meta-analysis showed a statistically significant gain of STT in the CTG group when compared to soft tissue substitutes (n=8; WMD=0.51mm; 95% CI [0.28; 0.75]; 95% PI [-0.09; 1.12]; p<.001). Furthermore, the use of CTG resulted in significantly higher pink esthetic score values (n=3; WMD=1.02; 95% CI [0.29; 1.74]; 95% PI [-3.67; 5.70]; p=.01) and less recession (n=2; WMD=0.50mm; 95% CI [0.10; 0.89]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p=.014) when compared to soft tissue substitutes. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for any of the following secondary variables: MBL, clinical parameters for the diagnosis of peri-implant health, position of the interproximal tissues, keratinized mucosa or PROMS (p > 0.05), except for medication intake, which was significantly higher when using CTG as compared to soft tissue substitutes (n=2; WMD=1.68; 95% CI [1.30; 2.07]; 95% PI [not estimable]; p<.001). Soft tissue augmentation procedures are efficacious on soft tissue thickening and, in particular, CTG demonstrated a significant STT gain when compared to no graft or soft tissue substitutes.

Immediate Implant Placement in Conjunction with Acellular Dermal Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Volumetric Study.

Connective tissue grafts have become a standard for compensating horizontal volume loss in immediate implant placement. The use of new biomaterials like acellular matrices may avoid the need to harvest autogenous grafts, yielding less postoperative morbidity. This randomized comparative study evaluated the clinical outcomes following extraction and immediate implant placement in conjunction with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) and the use of a porcine acellular dermal matrix (ADM) vs an autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) in the anterior maxilla. Twenty patients (11 men, 9 women) with a mean age of 48.9 years (range: 21 to 72 years) were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the test (ADM) or control (CTG) group. They underwent tooth extraction and immediate implant placement together with ABBM for socket grafting and either ADM or CTG for soft tissue augmentation. Twelve months after implant placement, the cases were evaluated clinically and volumetrically. All implants achieved osseointegration and were restored. The average horizontal change of the ridge dimension at 1 year postsurgery was -0.55 ± 0.32 mm for the ADM group and -0.60 ± 0.49 mm for the CTG group. Patients of the ADM group reported significantly less postoperative pain. Using xenografts for hard and soft tissue augmentation in conjunction with immediate implant placement showed no difference in the volume change in comparison to an autogenous soft tissue graft, and showed significantly less postoperative morbidity.

Connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix after immediate implant placement in esthetic area: A randomized clinical trial.

The use of connective tissue graft (CTG) with immediate implant placement and provisionalisation have shown promising results. It is not clear if the same outcome could be achieved using porcine-derived collagen matrix (PDCM) as grafting material. This study aimed to assess the esthetic and functional outcomes of immediate temporization of immediately placed fully tapered implants combined with bone and soft tissue augmentation, using either a CTG or a PDCM, in fresh extraction sockets of the anterior sites. Patients with a failing anterior tooth were included in this study. After extraction, they received an immediate implant with simultaneous hard and soft tissue augmentation and immediate provisional restoration. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the group. Soft tissue augmentation in the control group (CTG) consisted of a CTG, whereas PDCM was used in the test group. After 4 months, definitive restorations were delivered, and pink esthetic score (PES) was evaluated at T1, prosthetic delivery, and at 12-month follow-up (T2). In addition, crestal bone change, probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, bleeding on provisional removal, and implant stability quotient were also recorded. A total of 45 patients received the intended treatment (22 controls and 23 tests) 45 implants totally, with no implant failures at T2. PES mean ± SD after 1 year was noted to be 12.9 ± 1.2 for the CTG group and 12.1 ± 1.3 for the PDCM group (p=0.507). Within the limits of this trial, both treatment protocols resulted in comparable esthetic outcomes, with results showing PES >12 and stable clinical parameters after 1 year of follow-up.

A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re-establish buccal convexity at dental implant sites: Three-year results.

To compare guided bone regeneration (GBR) to connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of increase in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) at three-year follow-up when applied at the buccal aspect of single implant sites demonstrating a minor horizontal alveolar defect. Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal alveolar defect were enrolled in a single-blind RCT. All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6mm, received a single implant at least 3months after tooth removal and were randomly allocated to the control (GBR) or test group (CTG) to re-establish buccal soft tissue convexity. Primary outcome was linear increase in BSP, meaning increase at the buccal aspect of the implant, based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary outcomes were buccal bone and buccal soft tissue thickness, aesthetic and clinical parameters. Twenty-one patients were included per group at baseline. After three years, three patients in the GBR group and four in the CTG group were not willing to return for re-assessment. Hence, the final sample included 9 females/9males (mean age 52) in the GBR group and 8 females / 9males in the CTG group (mean age 49). The changes in BSP over time were not significantly different between GBR and CTG (p=0.629). At three years, sites treated with GBR demonstrated 1.06mm (95% CI: 0.83; 1.28) increase in BSP, whereas sites treated with CTG showed 0.99mm (95% CI: 0.65; 1.35) increase in BSP (p=0.699) compared to baseline. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the parameters except for Mucosal Scarring Index, which was 1.63 (95% CI: 0.73; 2.53) lower for CTG (p=0.002) at study termination. There was no significant difference in linear increase in BSP between GBR and CTG after three years. Hence, clinical decision-making should be based on other factors.

Peri-implant soft-tissue esthetic outcome after immediate implant placement in conjunction with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix or connective tissue graft: A randomized controlled clinical study.

This randomized comparative study evaluated the clinical esthetic outcome of the peri-implant mucosa following extraction and immediate implant placement in conjunction with anorganic bovine bone mineral (ABBM) and the use of a porcine acellular dermal matrix (pADM) versus an autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) in the anterior maxilla. Twenty patients (11 men, 9 women) with a mean age of 48,9 years (range 21-72) were included in the study and randomly assigned to either the test (pADM) or control group (CTG). They underwent extraction and immediate implant placement together with ABBM for socket grafting and either pADM or CTG for soft tissue augmentation. Twelve months after implant placement color measurements of the peri-implant mucosa and a reference tooth were performed using a spectophotometer and the color difference (ΔE) was calculated. The overall esthetic appearance of the peri-implant soft tissue was evaluated using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Statistical analysis was performed using Student's T-Test, the alpha was set to 0.05. All implants received osseointegration and were restored. The mean color difference of the peri-implant mucosa 1year after surgery amounted ΔE 4.06 ± 1.6 for the test group (pADM) and ΔE 3.58 ± 1.36 mm for the control group (CTG), showing no statistically significant difference (p=0.47). The mean PES of the pADM group was 11.4 ± 1.4 and for the CTG group 10.7 ± 1.5, showing no statistically significant difference (p=0.29). Twelve months after surgery, a porcine acellular dermal matrix for soft tissue augmentation in conjunction with immediate implant placement showed no difference in the overall esthetic appearance regarding color match and Pink Esthetic Score in comparison to autogenous soft tissue graft. Connective tissue grafts have become a standard in order to enhance the soft tissue quality and esthetic appearance in immediate implant placement. The use of new biomaterials like porcine acellular dermal matrices may avoid the need to harvest autogenous grafts resulting in simplified treatment and less postoperative morbidity.

Clinical evaluation of the treatment of multiple gingival recessions with connective tissue graft or concentrated growth factor using tunnel technique: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

To assess the effectiveness of the combination of tunnel technique (TT) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) for root coverage in treating multiple gingival recessions (GR) and compare with the connective tissue graft (CTG). Forty patients with Miller Class I and II maxillary or mandibular GR were randomly divided into two groups as follows: TT + CTG and TT + CGF. The results at baseline and 6 months were evaluated for the following clinical parameters: complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (MRC), gingival thickness (GT), gingival recession width (RW), gingival recession depth (RD), and keratinized tissue width (KTW). At 6 months, a statistically significant difference was found in RD, RW, MRC, CRC, KTW, and GT compared with the baseline (p < 0.05). MRC was determined 89.52±16.36% in the TT + CTG and 76.60±24.10% in the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). CRC was achieved in 66.7% of the TT + CTG and 47.4% of the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). The increase in KTW and GT was significantly better in the TT + CTG group compared to the TT + CGF (p < 0.05). The study showed that TT + CGF did not improve the results as much as TT + CTG in the treatment of Miller Class I and II GR. However, this finding is not sufficient to advocate the true clinical effects of CGF on GR treatment with TT. CGF could not serve as a direct alternative biomaterial to the gold standard CTG. ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT04561947.

Root coverage of multiple gingival recessions treated with coronally advanced flap associated with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix or connective tissue graft: a 6-month split-mouth controlled and randomized clinical trial

This study aimed to compare xenogeneic dermal matrix (XDM) to connective tissue graft (CTG) associated with coronally advanced flap (CAF) in treating Miller's class I and II (RT1) multiple gingival recession in a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. Fifteen patients with bilateral Miller's class I and II multiple recessions were selected. The patient's side receiving each treatment was randomly allocated to receive XDM or CTG. The clinical parameters were measured at baseline and 6 months of follow-up. At 6 months, no significant difference in the root coverage (RC) (95.28 ± 6.89% for CTG and 92.68 ± 7.35% for XDM) and the keratinized tissue (KT) gain (0.91 ± 0.46 mm for CTG and 0.74 ± 0.39 mm for XDM) was observed between groups (p > 0.05). The CTG group presented higher complete root coverage (CRC) than XDM (60% and 33%, respectively) (p = 0.045). Multiple logistic regression indicated that the XDM (p = 0.01) and the XDM and KT interaction (p = 0.02) negatively interfered in the CRC. A 1-mm increase in the baseline KT when using XDM increases almost 6 times the chance of achieving CRC, and XDM reached a similar CRC probability to CTG when the receptor area presented at least 2 mm of KT. Both treatments were effective for treating multiple gingival recession; similar KT gain, GR reduction, and RC were obtained for CTG and XDM, while CTG promoted higher CRC than XDM. Moreover, the amount of KT at baseline was determinant for CRC when treating multiple gingival recession with XDM. XDM produces limited CRC in sites with a reduced amount of KT. Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (REBEC) number RBR-56NZQ6.

Coronally advanced flap achieved higher esthetic outcomes without a connective tissue graft for the treatment of single gingival recessions: a 4-year randomized clinical trial.

Limited long-term data are available when comparing the esthetic outcomes of coronally advanced flap (CAF) with or without a connective tissue graft (CTG). The aim of this study was to compare the 4-year esthetic outcomes of CAF vs CAF + CTG for the treatment of isolated maxillary gingival recessions. Forty-eight patients were randomly assigned for treatment either with CAF (control; N = 24) or to CAF + CTG (test group; N = 24). Patients were followed after the surgery until the final evaluation. A professional esthetic evaluation was performed using the Root coverage Esthetic Score (RES). Recession reduction, mean root coverage, and complete root coverage were also evaluated. Forty-two patients completed the study at the 4-year recall. A significant recession reduction was evident at 4 years, without significant intergroup differences. The CAF group showed a statistically significant higher final RES compared with the CAF + CTG group (9.14 ± 1.08 vs 7.25 ± 1.29, respectively, p < 0.001). Regarding the individual components of RES, gingival margin and marginal tissue contour were significantly higher in the CAF group compared with that in the CAF + CTG group. CAF presented with a significantly higher overall esthetic score than CAF + CTG, and in the individual RES components of marginal tissue contour and gingival margin after 4 years. CAF without the addition of CTG provided higher esthetic outcomes for the treatment of isolated gingival recessions.

Tunnel/Pouch versus Coronally Advanced Flap Combined with a Connective Tissue Graft for the Treatment of Maxillary Gingival Recessions: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: The long-term stability after soft tissue graft for covering gingival recession remains a pivotal goal for both patient and periodontist. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the four-year outcomes of the coronally advanced flap (CAF) versus the pouch/tunnel (POT) technique, both combined with connective tissue graft (CTG), for gingival recession treatment. Methods: Forty patients were initially randomly assigned to the control group (CAF + CTG; N = 20) and the test group (POT + CTG; N = 20). Clinical outcomes included mean root coverage (MRC) and complete root coverage (CRC), gingival thickness (GT), and keratinized tissue (KT) gain. Esthetic outcomes were also analyzed using the pink esthetic score (PES) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). All outcomes initially assessed at six months were extended to four years post-surgery. Results: No significant differences were observed between the two patient groups in terms of MRC and CRC. At four years, significantly greater GT and KT gain were noted in the POT + CTG group, and tissue texture enhancement was also more prominent in the test group. Conclusions: The POT + CTG technique allows for long-term clinical coverage of gingival recessions comparable to that of the CAF + CTG technique, but it potentially improves gingival thickness, keratinized tissue and esthetic results.

Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivate for root coverage: 2-year results of an RCT using 3D digital measuring for volumetric comparison of gingival dimensions.

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare clinical and volumetric outcomes of tunnel technique (TUN) with subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) versus coronally advanced flap (CAF) with enamel matrix derivate (EMD) 2years after gingival recession (GR) treatment. Twenty-three patients contributed 45 Miller class I or II GR. At baseline and follow-up examinations, study models were collected. Their three-dimensional scans allowed precise computer-assisted measurement of recession depth (REC), complete root coverage (CRC), percentage of root coverage (RC), pointwise (pTHK) and mean areal (aTHK) marginal soft tissue thickness. Clinical examination delivered probing depths (PPD) and height of keratinized tissue. 24months after surgery, digitally evaluated CRC was present in 60.0% of the TUN+CTG and 0.0% of the CAF+EMD-treated sites (p<.0001), meaning a certain relapse of the gingival margin ragarding both approaches. RC amounted to 94.0% (TUN+CTG) and 57.3% (CAF+EMD), respectively (p<.0001). REC reduction (RECred) was significantly higher for TUN+CTG (1.81±0.56mm) than for CAF+EMD (0.90±0.45mm) (p<.0001). pTHK and aTHK values were significantly greater in the TUN+CTG group (1.41±0.35mm and 1.11±0.26mm) than in the CAF+EMD group (0.78±0.32mm and 0.60±0.26mm) (p<.0001). Statistical analysis detected positive correlations between THK and both RC and RECred (p<.001). Two years post-operatively, CTG showed better clinical and volumetric outcomes than EMD. Increased THK values were associated with improved outcomes regarding RC and RECred.

Comparison of Connective Tissue Graft and Platelet Rich Fibrin as Matrices in A Novel Papillary Augmentation Access: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Objective The present study was a randomized controlled clinical trial with the aim of evaluating the increase in papillary height and reduction in black triangle height obtained by the novel papillary augmentation access with either connective tissue graft (CTG) or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) as matrix from baseline to 6 months. Materials and Methods A total number of 20 sites with Nordland and Tarnow’s Class I, I-II and II interdental papillary loss were recruited into the study. The sites were randomly allocated with 10 sites per group into either: Group A (control group) or Group B (test group) which utilizes the same technique with CTG or PRF as matrix, respectively. The clinical parameters such as PPD (probing pocket depth) and CAL (clinical attachment level) at the surgical site, plaque score (FMPS), bleeding scores (FMBS), interdental papillary height (PH) and black triangle height (BTH), along with visual analog score by dentist (VAS-D) and by patient (VAS-P) were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months. Results In both CTG and PRF groups, all the primary and secondary outcome variables such as PH, BTH, VAS-D and VAS-P showed statistically significant improvement from baseline to 6 months ( p ≤0.05) within the group. On comparison at 6 months, there were no differences in the papillary height between the groups. However, the BTH has significantly reduced in the CTG group than the PRF group. Similarly, the VAS-D significantly improved in the CTG group than the PRF group ( p = 0.010) at 6 months. Conclusion The study demonstrates that the proposed papillary augmentation access with CTG and PRF was successful in managing the unaesthetic interdental papillary loss, with CTG showing better results in terms of reduction of black triangle than PRF.

Efficacy of Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix to Augment Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Thickness Compared to Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Several approaches for increasing peri-implant mucosal thickness have been proposed, including autogenous, allogeneic, and xenogeneic grafts. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze whether xenogeneic matrices are viable alternatives to autogenous soft tissue grafts in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation. A systematic search was performed to select randomized clinical trials that compared connective tissue grafts and xenogeneic collagen matrices. The primary outcomes were the mucosal thickness and keratinized mucosa changes, while the secondary outcomes were patient morbidity, painkiller consumption, and surgical time required for the procedure. Seven randomized clinical trials were included for the final evaluation with a total number of 218 implant sites (108 in the connective tissue graft group, 110 in the collagen matrix group) with 3 to 12 months (mean: 6 months) follow-up period. Results showed mucosal thickness increase in both buccal and crestal sites, but it did not yield statistical significance. The keratinized mucosa gain difference was only -0.06 mm (95% CI [-30.0, 0.18]) between the treatments. The postsurgical discomfort, increased consumption of painkillers, and reduction of treatment time (15.46 minutes less) differed significantly in favor of the collagen matrix group. Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that collagen matrix and connective tissue graft are equivalent in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation.

Acellular dermal matrix allograft versus autogenous connective tissue grafts for thickening soft tissue and covering multiple gingival recessions: a 5-year preference clinical study.

The present preference clinical trial compared the long-term outcome of acellular dermal matrix allograft (ADMA) versus autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) in the treatment of gingival recessions. Thirty-nine consecutive patients with 233 Miller Class I and II recessions were treated by one operator (MS) with coronally advanced flaps and in addition either ADMA or CTG harvested from their palate. Clinical parameters were measured by an independent and masked assessor at baseline, 6 months, and 5 years. Thirty-two patients could be recruited for long-term examination (seven dropouts). At 6 months and 5 years, all clinical parameters showed significant improvements in both groups with slightly better but statistically not significant clinical results for CTGs. At 5 years, the CTG group revealed an additional gain of keratinized mucosa width (t6m-0: CTG 1.88 mm, ADMA 1.04 mm, P = .081; and t5y-0: CTG 3.98 mm, ADMA 3.06 mm, P = .01) compared to 6 months, whereas the mean for ADMAs remained stable (intergroup comparison statistically significant, P = .010). In all other parameters in both groups, slight but not statistically significant relapses were detected. Only one minor postoperative complication at one ADMA-treated site occurred. Regarding the long-term results, ADMA could be an alternative treatment option to thicken soft tissue and to cover multiple gingival recessions. If the gain of keratinized mucosa width is considered as a main goal, CTG may have a slight advantage over ADMA.

Low-level laser therapy as an adjunct to connective tissue graft procedure in the treatment of gingival recession defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of low level laser therapy (LLLT) as an adjunct to connective tissue graft (CTG) procedure for the treatment of gingival recession (GR). The addressed PICO question was; "In patients with Miller Class I or II recession defects (Population), what is the effect of LLLT as adjunct to CTG (Intervention) in comparison to CTG alone (Comparison) on gingival recession depth (Outcome)" Electronic databases were searched up to December 2017. Primary outcomes included gingival recession depth (GRD), whereas secondary outcomes were width of keratinized tissue (WKT) and relative clinical attachment level gain (RCAL). The weighted mean differences (WMD) of outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable were calculated using random effect model. Four randomized clinical studies were included. Two studies showed significantly greater improvements with LLLT whereas, 2 studies showed comparable outcomes between LLLT and CTG group. Considering the effects of adjunctive LLLT as compared to CTG, a high degree of heterogeneity for GRD (Q value = 9.40, P = .02, I2 =68.11%) and WKT ((Q value = 16.04, P = .001, I2 =81.31%) was noticed among both the groups. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant GRD (WMD= -0.61, 95% CI= -1.23 to 0.004, P = .05) for LLLT + CTG treatment versus CTG alone only. LLLT improves clinical and patient-centered outcomes of CTG procedures for the treatment of GR remains debatable. However, due to the small number of included studies and high heterogeneity in the laser parameters, precautions must be exercised when interpreting the results of the present systematic review. Gingival recessions in dentistry are of major esthetic concern. Minimal gingival recessions can be treated by flap operations, but the predictability and stability of the outcomes is debatable. In the present review, low level laser therapy (LLLT) adjunct to connective tissue graft (CTG) depicted a significant improvement in the predictability and stability of root coverage outcomes compared with CTG alone.

Clinical evaluation of combined surgical/ restorative treatment of gingival recession-type defects using different restorative materials: A randomized clinical trial

Background/purposeAn ideal therapeutic procedure for the treatment of gingival recession associated with an NCCL has presented a challenge to clinicians. Various dental materials and surgical approaches have been used to manage gingival recessions associated with NCCLs for the most predictable combined surgical/restorative treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment of gingival recessions associated with non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) using a modified coronally advanced flap (MCAF) in combination with a connective tissue graft (CTG) on restored root surfaces. Materials and methodsTwenty-three systemically healthy subjects, who were positive for the presence of three cervical lesions associated with gingival recessions in three different adjacent teeth, were enrolled in the study. The NCCL were each restored prior to surgery by using one of three different materials: nanofilled composite resin (NCR), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) or giomer. The gingival recession defects were treated by CTG. ResultsInter-group differences were not statistically significant for probing depth (PD), relative recession height (rRH), relative clinical attachment level (rCAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW) or keratinized tissue thickness (KTT) (p > 0.05) among the groups at any time. The mean percentage of defect coverage was 71.18 ± 23.16% for NCR + CTG group; 71.33 ± 22.33% for RMGI + CTG group; and 64.23 ± 20.33% for giomer + CTG group at 1 year postoperatively (p > 0.05). ConclusionThe combined surgical/restorative treatments provided successful clinical results. Giomer + CTG may be less effective compared to other groups for treatment of gingival recession associated with NCCL.