Clinical Comparison of the Volumetric Changes in Single Pontic Site Development through Connective Tissue Grafting Using Modified Pouch Technique versus Pouch Technique in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

AIM: The aim is to compare the volumetric changes between pouch technique versus the modified pouch technique in pontic site development using connective tissue graft in patients that have Seibert class I ridge defects in the maxillary esthetic zone. Methodology. This randomized, controlled, double-blinded, parallel-grouped clinical trial included sixteen patients with a single pontic site in the maxillary esthetic area presenting Seibert Class I ridge defects. Patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups: test group (n: 8) received soft tissue augmentation with connective tissue graft using the modified pouch technique and control group (n: 8) received soft tissue augmentation with connective tissue graft using pouch technique. The volumetric evaluation was carried out by taking impressions at baseline, 3 and 6 months after the surgery. Keratinized tissue thickness was also measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after the surgery. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was recorded by the patients at day 3, day 7, and day 14 after the surgery. RESULTS: The test group had more increase in soft tissue volume than the control group at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The keratinized tissue width at baseline in the test group had a higher value than that of the control group. At 3 months, both groups had the same mean value, while at 6 months, the test group had a higher value than the control group. Regarding postoperative pain, the visual analogue scale shown at day 3 in the test group had a higher value than that of the control group, while at day 7, the control group had a higher value than the test group. At day 14, both groups had the same mean value. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation using both the traditional pouch technique and the modified pouch technique led to successful soft tissue volume augmentation in pontic site development in Seibert Class I ridge defects with no statistically significant difference between the two techniques.