Search

Background: Different extracellular matrix (ECM)-based technologies in periodontal and peri-implant soft tissue augmentation have been proposed in the market. The present review compared the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes (STSs) and autogenous free gingival grafts (FGGs) or connective tissue grafts (CTGs) in mucogingival procedures to increase keratinized tissue (KT) width around teeth and implants. Methods: Two independent examiners performed an electronic search on MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library based on the following PICOS format: (P) adult patients; (I) soft tissue substitutes and FGGs/CTGs; (C) STSs vs. CTGs; STSs vs. FGGs; STSs vs control; (O) KT width gain; (S) systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials. Studies published before November 2023 were included. Results: Around teeth, all biomaterials showed superior performance compared to a coronally advanced flap (CAF) alone for treating gingival recessions. However, when compared to CTGs, acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) yield the most similar outcomes to the gold standard (CTGs), even though in multiple recessions, CTGs continue to be considered the most favorable approach. The use of STSs (acellular matrix or tissue-engineered) in combination with apically positioned flaps (APF) resulted in significantly less gain in KT width compared to that achieved with FGGs and APFs. Around dental implants, free gingival grafts were deemed more effective than soft tissue substitutes in enhancing keratinized mucosa width. Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, questions remain about the alternative use of soft tissue substitutes for conventional grafting procedures using free gingival grafts or connective tissue grafts around teeth and implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. Comprehensive and systematic literature searches were performed until December 2021. A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria (PICO): In patients with dental implants undergoing soft tissue augmentation (P), do soft tissue substitutes (I) compared to autogenous soft tissue graft (SCTG [subepithelial connective tissue graft]) (C) limit the post‐operative morbidity and other patient reported‐outcomes measures (O). Randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective‐, retrospective‐ and case‐series studies were included. Meta‐analyses were performed whenever possible and the results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 29 clinical studies were included. For mucosal thickness gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 14.91 Visual Analog Scale [VAS] units; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.42‐23.40; P <.0006) based on a 0‐100 VAS scale. Based on a 0‐10 VAS scale, a borderline significance of pain reduction was found when soft tissue substitutes were applied (n = 4; WMD = 1.62 VAS units; 95% CI 0.01‐3.23; P =.05). For keratinized tissue gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception after keratinized tissue augmentation compared to SCTG based on a 0‐100 VAS scale (n = 2; WMD = 21.43 VAS units; 95% CI 12.58‐30.28; P <.0001). Based on the 0‐10 VAS scale, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain as compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 1.65 VAS units; 95% CI 0.66‐2.64; P =.001). Regarding pain medication, soft tissue substitutes required less painkillers (n = 6; WMD = 1.56 tablets; 95% CI 1.22‐1.91; P <.00001) after soft tissue augmentation. The surgery time was significantly reduced when soft tissue substitutes were used (n = 5; WMD = 10.9 minutes; 95% CI 4.60‐17.19; P <.00001). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, aesthetics, and quality of life (OHIP‐14) between soft tissue substitutes and autogenous grafts following soft tissue augmentation at implants sites. Soft tissue substitutes, compared to autogenous grafts, significantly improve PROMs following soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. Soft tissue substitutes can reduce pain perception, amounts of painkillers and surgery time while achieving similar levels of patient´s satisfaction as autogenous grafts without impairing the clinical outcomes. The current evidence indicates that they constitute a valid and reliable alternative to minimize the invasiveness in soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. Material and methods: Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al2O3 were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results: The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. Conclusions: Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. Clinical relevance: All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes compared to autogenous gingival grafts in surgical procedures aimed at increasing the width of keratinized mucosa (KM) around dental implants. Materials and Methods: Two focused questions were developed: PICOS #1) "What is the efficacy of surgical procedures using soft tissue substitutes, as compared to autogenous grafts, to increase the amount of peri‐implant keratinized mucosa, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?"; and PICOS #2) "What is the effectiveness of soft tissue substitutes to increase the amount of peri‐implant keratinized mucosa, in RCTs, CCTs, cohort studies or case series?". Besides KM augmentation, other relevant outcomes such as clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes, incidence of biological complications, surgical time, or patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. Meta‐analyses were performed whenever possible. Results: Ten publications and an unpublished study were included. KM augmentation was significantly greater for autogenous grafts (n = 6; weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.9 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) [−1.4; −0.3]; p =.001). However, no significant differences between autogenous grafts and soft tissue substitutes were observed when exclusively xenografts were considered (n = 5; WMD=−0.8 mm; 95% CI [−1.6; 0.0]; p =.062). Surgical time and postsurgical pain seemed to be reduced by the use of soft tissue substitutes. Conclusions: Free gingival grafts (FGG) are more effective in the augmentation of KM mucosa around dental implants than soft tissue substitutes. However, substitutes of xenogeneic origin may be an alternative to autogenous tissues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes compared to autogenous gingival grafts in surgical procedures aimed at increasing the width of keratinized mucosa (KM) around dental implants. Materials and Methods: Two focused questions were developed: PICOS #1) "What is the efficacy of surgical procedures using soft tissue substitutes, as compared to autogenous grafts, to increase the amount of peri‐implant keratinized mucosa, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?"; and PICOS #2) "What is the effectiveness of soft tissue substitutes to increase the amount of peri‐implant keratinized mucosa, in RCTs, CCTs, cohort studies or case series?". Besides KM augmentation, other relevant outcomes such as clinical and radiographic peri‐implant outcomes, incidence of biological complications, surgical time, or patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. Meta‐analyses were performed whenever possible. Results: Ten publications and an unpublished study were included. KM augmentation was significantly greater for autogenous grafts (n = 6; weighted mean difference (WMD) = −0.9 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) [−1.4; −0.3]; p =.001). However, no significant differences between autogenous grafts and soft tissue substitutes were observed when exclusively xenografts were considered (n = 5; WMD=−0.8 mm; 95% CI [−1.6; 0.0]; p =.062). Surgical time and postsurgical pain seemed to be reduced by the use of soft tissue substitutes. Conclusions: Free gingival grafts (FGG) are more effective in the augmentation of KM mucosa around dental implants than soft tissue substitutes. However, substitutes of xenogeneic origin may be an alternative to autogenous tissues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The scope of this consensus was to review the biological processes of soft tissue wound healing in the oral cavity and to histologically evaluate soft tissue healing in clinical and pre-clinical models. Aims To review the current knowledge regarding the biological processes of soft tissue wound healing at teeth, implants and on the edentulous ridge. Furthermore, to review soft tissue wound healing at these sites, when using barrier membranes, growth and differentiation factors and soft tissue substitutes. Collection of data Searches of the literature with respect to recessions at teeth and soft tissue deficiencies at implants, augmentation of the area of keratinized tissue and soft tissue volume were conducted. The available evidence was collected, categorized and summarized. Fundamental principles of oral soft tissue wound healing Oral mucosal and skin wound healing follow a similar pattern of the four phases of haemostasis, inflammation, proliferation and maturation/matrix remodelling. The soft connective tissue determines the characteristics of the overlaying oral epithelium. Within 7-14 days, epithelial healing of surgical wounds at teeth is completed. Soft tissue healing following surgery at implants requires 6-8 weeks for maturation. The resulting tissue resembles scar tissue. Well-designed pre-clinical studies providing histological data have been reported describing soft tissue wound healing, when using barrier membranes, growth and differentiation factors and soft tissue substitutes. Few controlled clinical studies with low numbers of patients are available for some of the treatments reviewed at teeth. Whereas, histological new attachment has been demonstrated in pre-clinical studies resulting from some of the treatments reviewed, human histological data commonly report a lack of new attachment but rather long junctional epithelial attachment and connective tissue adhesion. Regarding soft tissue healing at implants human data are very scarce. Conclusions Oral soft tissue healing at teeth, implants and the edentulous ridge follows the same phases as skin wound healing. Histological studies in humans have not reported new attachment formation at teeth for the indications studied. Human histological data of soft tissue wound healing at implants are limited. Clinical recommendations The use of barriers membranes, growth and differentiation factors and soft tissue substitutes for the treatment of localized gingival/mucosal recessions, insufficient amount of keratinized tissue and insufficient soft tissue volume is at a developing stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The scope was to review the three main clinical indications in periodontal plastic surgical procedures. Aims To review the fundamental principles in periodontal plastic surgery, the main surgical designs in flap surgery applied to the treatment of recessions, peri-implant soft tissue deficiencies and soft tissue ridge augmentation, as well as the surgical principles of using autologous connective tissue grafts and soft tissue substitutes. Fundamental Principles in Plastic Surgery In the pre-operative phase, the key elements are the control of prognostic factors affecting the patient, namely oral hygiene, tobacco smoking cessation and systemic disease control. In the operative phase, the principles of flap design, mobilization, advancement, adaptation and stabilization. In the post-operative phase infection control, including effective oral hygiene measures, antiseptic treatment and other medications. Critical Elements in Flap Design and Surgical Execution In single recession defects, the most widely used flap technique is the coronally advanced flap and in specific clinical situations the laterally positioned flap. In multiple recession defects, the number of defects and their location and depth guide the surgical design, being one design with and the other without vertical releasing incisions. When flaps are used in combination with grafts the tunnel flap is also used extensively. Critical Elements in the Use of Soft Tissue Replacement Grafts The key elements are the donor site selection and harvesting technique, its tissue integration and volume stability. Clinical Recommendations Given the current evidence, various clinical recommendations on the use of flaps and grafts are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]