Cargando…
The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial
PURPOSE: For alveolar ridge preservation, various treatment protocols have been described. While most studies focus on the effect of the bone graft material, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of different soft-tissue management techniques on the soft and hard tissue. METHODS: A tota...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8603978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34797465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00390-3 |
_version_ | 1784601864523743232 |
---|---|
author | Papace, Colline Büsch, Christopher Ristow, Oliver Keweloh, Martin Hoffmann, Jürgen Mertens, Christian |
author_facet | Papace, Colline Büsch, Christopher Ristow, Oliver Keweloh, Martin Hoffmann, Jürgen Mertens, Christian |
author_sort | Papace, Colline |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: For alveolar ridge preservation, various treatment protocols have been described. While most studies focus on the effect of the bone graft material, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of different soft-tissue management techniques on the soft and hard tissue. METHODS: A total of 20 maxillary extraction sockets were grafted with an anorganic xenogenic bone graft and then randomly treated with either a combined epithelialized-subepithelial connective tissue graft (CECG) or a porcine collagen matrix (CM) placed in labial and palatal tunnels. Measurements of soft-tissue thickness were performed at tooth extraction (T0), implant insertion (T1) and second stage surgery (T2). RESULTS: In the CECG group, gingival thickness was 1.18 ± 0.56 mm (T0), 1.29 ± 0.26 mm (T1) and 1.2 ± 0.32 mm (T3). In the CM group, the measurements were 1.24 ± 0.50 mm (T0), 1.6 ± 0.6 mm (T1) and 1.7 ± 1.06 mm. Thus, there was an overall increase in gingival thickness from T0 to T2 of 0.02 ± 0.66 mm (CECG) compared to 0.46 ± 0.89 mm (CM). The thickness of keratinized soft-tissue was 3.91 ± 1.11 mm (CECG) and 4.76 ± 1.48 mm (CM) before extraction and 3.93 ± 1.17 mm (CECG) and 4.22 mm ± 1.26 mm (CM) at implant follow-up. Mean peri-implant probing depths were 3.15 ± 1.39 mm (CECG) and 3.41 ± 0.99 mm (CM). CONCLUSIONS: After ridge preservation, comparable soft-tissue parameters were observed in both groups, whether treated with a collagen matrix or a combined autologous connective tissue graft. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00390-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8603978 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86039782021-11-23 The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial Papace, Colline Büsch, Christopher Ristow, Oliver Keweloh, Martin Hoffmann, Jürgen Mertens, Christian Int J Implant Dent Research PURPOSE: For alveolar ridge preservation, various treatment protocols have been described. While most studies focus on the effect of the bone graft material, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of different soft-tissue management techniques on the soft and hard tissue. METHODS: A total of 20 maxillary extraction sockets were grafted with an anorganic xenogenic bone graft and then randomly treated with either a combined epithelialized-subepithelial connective tissue graft (CECG) or a porcine collagen matrix (CM) placed in labial and palatal tunnels. Measurements of soft-tissue thickness were performed at tooth extraction (T0), implant insertion (T1) and second stage surgery (T2). RESULTS: In the CECG group, gingival thickness was 1.18 ± 0.56 mm (T0), 1.29 ± 0.26 mm (T1) and 1.2 ± 0.32 mm (T3). In the CM group, the measurements were 1.24 ± 0.50 mm (T0), 1.6 ± 0.6 mm (T1) and 1.7 ± 1.06 mm. Thus, there was an overall increase in gingival thickness from T0 to T2 of 0.02 ± 0.66 mm (CECG) compared to 0.46 ± 0.89 mm (CM). The thickness of keratinized soft-tissue was 3.91 ± 1.11 mm (CECG) and 4.76 ± 1.48 mm (CM) before extraction and 3.93 ± 1.17 mm (CECG) and 4.22 mm ± 1.26 mm (CM) at implant follow-up. Mean peri-implant probing depths were 3.15 ± 1.39 mm (CECG) and 3.41 ± 0.99 mm (CM). CONCLUSIONS: After ridge preservation, comparable soft-tissue parameters were observed in both groups, whether treated with a collagen matrix or a combined autologous connective tissue graft. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00390-3. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8603978/ /pubmed/34797465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00390-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Papace, Colline Büsch, Christopher Ristow, Oliver Keweloh, Martin Hoffmann, Jürgen Mertens, Christian The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title | The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full | The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_fullStr | The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_full_unstemmed | The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_short | The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
title_sort | effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled clinical trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8603978/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34797465 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00390-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT papacecolline theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT buschchristopher theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT ristowoliver theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT kewelohmartin theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT hoffmannjurgen theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT mertenschristian theeffectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT papacecolline effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT buschchristopher effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT ristowoliver effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT kewelohmartin effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT hoffmannjurgen effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial AT mertenschristian effectofdifferentsofttissuemanagementtechniquesforalveolarridgepreservationarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial |