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]