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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Papace, Colline, Büsch, Christopher, Ristow, Oliver, Keweloh, Martin, Hoffmann, Jürgen, Mertens, Christian
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