How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts
1
Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany
2
Private Practice, Münster, Germany and Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Plastic Surgery and Implantology, University of Cologne, 50932 Köln, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21(14), 5043; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145043
Submission received: 26 June 2020
/
Revised: 10 July 2020
/
Accepted: 14 July 2020
/
Published: 17 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimization of Biomaterials for Reconstructive and Regenerative Medicine)
Abstract
:This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of xenogeneic collagen matrices (XCMs) and acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) in comparison to connective tissue grafts (CTGs) for the augmentation of oral mucosa around dental implants. MEDLINE and the Web of Science were searched for clinical studies that compared substitute materials for the augmentation of oral mucosa to the subepithelial connective tissue graft around dental implants during or after implantation. The review was conducted according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. From an initial search result set of 1050 references, seven articles were included in the review. The study designs were heterogeneous, so no meta-analysis could be performed. Both the CTG and either type of substitute material resulted in increased mucosal thickness. Four studies showed no significant difference, while three demonstrated a significant difference, favoring the CTGs over alternative materials. Soft tissue augmentation around dental implants is a safe procedure and leads to thicker mucosal tissue. The subepithelial connective tissue graft can still be regarded as the gold standard, but substitute materials may be an acceptable alternative in some situations, such as for pain-sensitive patients, among inexperienced surgeons, and for sites with an already thick biotype.
1. Introduction
Basic animal studies dating back to 1996 have shown that soft tissue thickness around dental implants affects crestal bone remodeling after second stage surgery, as the biologic width establishes [1]. In this experiment, a thin biotype was artificially generated in a test group at the time of abutment connection. Although the length of the junctional epithelium hardly differed between the groups, the test group showed a continuous initial remodeling that led to bone loss. In a clinical study conducted by Linkevicius et al., patients with thick mucosa, for which the lower limit was set as 2 mm, showed significantly less post restorative remodeling than patients with thin mucosa [2].
But how exactly are a thick and a thin biotype actually defined? Olsson and Lindhe were the first to use the term biotype [3]. In their study published in 1991, they examined the periodontal conditions (probing, attachment level and amount of gingival recession) of the central maxillary incisors of 113 subjects. In addition, they calculated the ratio of crown width to crown length (CW:CL ratio). Subjects with longer, narrower incisors suffered significantly more often from recessions and had increased probing attachment levels. The authors henceforth referred to the biotype of patients with long narrow teeth as thin. Patients with rather wide and short central incisors were classified as thick biotype. These results confirmed previous animal studies which showed that plaque accumulation around tissues with low connective tissue density can lead to recessions [4,5]. The results of these studies could later be observed to a similar extent around implants. Patients with thin tissue showed a stronger tendency to recessions around implants [6]; so a thick biotype was defined as one of the success factors in implantology [7]. It should be noted that Olsson and Lindhe in their study neither examined the thickness of the mucosa nor did they define a threshold from which one can speak of a thick or thin type.
As described mucosal thickness has been identified as a factor influencing implant success [8]. Already in the early 1970s there were; therefore, efforts to thicken the oral soft tissue around natural teeth using connective tissue grafts [9]. Techniques to improve the gingival situation around implants have been developed and tested [10]. Connective tissue grafts from the lateral palate or tuber represent the gold standard to increase the thickness of the mucosa and can significantly influence the esthetic final result as well as the amount of marginal bone loss [11].
At the same time, patients and dentists are increasingly concerned with the overall esthetic appearance of implant restorations [8]. Particularly in the anterior region, “pink aesthetics” have gained more and more importance in recent years and specific scores like the Pink Esthetic Score [9,10] are currently used to evaluate esthetic appearance in clinical studies. Führhauser reported that 60% of his patients showed a greyish appearance of the peri-implant mucosa due to shine-through effects of restorative materials. These shine-through effects also seem to be related to the thickness of the soft tissue [11].
In the last few years collagen biomaterials as substitutes for autogenous connective tissue have been introduced [12,13]. These materials are mainly acellular matrices derived from xenogeneic or allogenic dermis and have several advantages including that the material is available almost indefinitely, a second surgical site can be avoided and the overall treatment time can be shortened. The harvesting of subepithelial connective tissue grafts is a demanding surgical technique and associated with considerable intra- and postoperative risks of bleeding, infection or necrosis [14].
Gargallo-Albiol et al. [15] published a meta-analysis comparing xenogeneic collagen matrices to the subepithelial connective tissue graft in 2019. The workgroup included studies that were published until 2018. The present paper offers new and longer-term data, more included trials and differs in some observations as well as the conclusion from the work mentioned above. We believe that it can only be advantageous if there are several references for scientists in the field. We hope to clearly state differing results and interpretations between this and the previous work. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of substitute biomaterials in comparison to connective tissue grafts (CTGs) for the augmentation of oral mucosa around dental implants. It includes randomized trials that examine the medium- and long-term results that can be expected regarding augmentation of the buccal mucosa with the so called “gold standard” subepithelial connective tissue graft in comparison to substitute materials, thereby providing practitioners with information to guide evidence-based decisions on the use of these new biomaterials.
2. Results
2.1. Study Selection
Seven studies [16,17,18,19,20,21,22] fulfilled the inclusion criteria, two of those were classified as Follow-ups [17,19]. We identified 1050 potentially relevant studies through a systematic electronic database search (521 Ovid Medline + 529 WoS All Databases). After removal of duplicates 768 studies remained for screening. 28 full-text-articles were assessed and evaluated, of which 21 were excluded (Figure 1). The exclusion of each relevant study is justified in the additional materials.
2.2. Thickness of Oral Mucosa
The study characteristics and the authors’ conclusions are presented in Table 1. Different techniques were used to measure the thickness of oral mucosa: two authors measured with CAD/CAM (Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing) manufactured stents and endodontic needles [17,19], three just with endodontic needles [16,20,22], one with an ultrasonic device [18], and one with CBCT-scans with a small field of view [21] to ensure a high quality picture. The CAD/CAM-made stents had guide channels for the endodontic needles so that the measurements were particularly reproducible. All authors used fixed measurement points. The outcomes are illustrated in Figure 2 and presented in Table 2. The surgical procedures are presented in Table 3. The baseline was defined as the time of the first measurement before any augmentation took place, with the exception of the work of Huber et al. and Thoma et al [20,22]. 2020, where the baseline was the insertion of the prosthetic crowns.
Cairo et al. [16] reported 2.1 mm (SD ± 0.6) mucosal thickness at baseline (second stage surgery of implantation) for both groups. After six months the mean thickness for the patients treated with CTGs rose to 3.5 mm (SD ± 0.6), the CM group showed 3 mm (SD ± 0.7), which was classified as a significant difference favoring the CTG. Hutton et al. [19] reported 3.05 mm (SD ± 1.28) at baseline (augmentation took place at the implant insertion) and 3.61 mm (SD ± 1.11) after four months for the CTG group. The acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) group started at 2.85 mm (SD ± 1.4) and ended with 2.9 mm (SD ± 0.94), showing no significant differences between the groups. Frizzera et al. [21] reported 0.98 mm (SD ± 0.29) for the CTG group and 0.98 mm (SD ± 0.21) for the CM group at baseline (augmentation performed during implant placement). After 12 months, the final thickness in the CTG group was 3.04 mm (SD ± 0.61) and 2.1 mm (SD ± 0.54) for the CM group, showing a significant difference towards the CTGs. As described in Table 1, Puzio et al. [18] had four different groups in the trial. They compared CMs with CTGs, once with augmentation three months before implantation (IIa and IIb) and once three months later, when the implant was uncovered (IIIa and IIIb). CMs three months prior to implantation (IIa) showed a mean thickness of 1.3 mm (SD ± 0.46), while CTGs (IIb) measurements demonstrated 1.30 mm (SD ± 0.23) at baseline. CMs three month after to implantation (IIIa) showed a mean thickness of 1.3 mm (SD ± 0.46), while CTGs (IIb) measurements displayed 1.30 mm (SD ± 0.23) at baseline. At the follow-up after twelve months, the soft tissue thickness of the individual groups presented as follows: IIa 2.46 mm (SD ± 0.75), IIb 3.06 mm (SD ± 0.61), IIIa 2.10 mm (SD ± 0.50) and IIIb 2.68 mm (SD ± 0.96). Thoma et al. [17] placed the grafts six weeks to six months after implantation. The CTG-Group presented a mean gain of 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) while the CM-Group gained 0.8 mm (SD ± 2.2). Two follow-up studies were published for this trial. The first by Huber et al. [22] determined the soft tissue thickness 12 months after placement of the final restoration, which was roughly 15 months after surgery. CTGs at baseline was on average 2.7 mm (SD ± 0.4) thick, CMs showed a mean thickness of 3.2 mm (SD ± 0.8). Over the course of 15 months, CTGs gained 0.4 mm for an average of 3.1 mm (SD ± 1.3), while the CM-Group lost 0.4 mm, resulting in a mean thickness of 2.8 mm (SD ± 0.7). Thoma et al. [20] took another measurement after an additional 24 months, so three years after the restorations were inserted. Patient treated with CTGs showed a mean thickness of 3.8 mm (SD ± 1.5), while Thoma et al. [20] reported 3.6 mm (SD ± 1.5) for the CM-Group. The results are presented graphically in Figure 2 and in Table 2.
2.3. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs)
Five of the included studies [16,17,19,20,22] reported on patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). Two [16,19] used a 100-point VAS (visual analog scale) to assess postoperative discomfort and overall satisfaction. Thoma et al. [17] observed the amount of painkillers consumed. In addition, patients provided information on their perceived pain level after seven to 10, 30 and 90 days using a VAS questionnaire. They also filled out “oral health impact screening” questionnaires (OHIP-G14) [23] at screening date, seven to 10 days and 90 days after surgery. Huber et al [22]. used the same questionnaire at baseline, after 30 and after 90 days during their follow-up study.
The results are presented in Table 4. Cairo et al. [16] reported significantly better patient-reported outcomes for the CM group, with higher final satisfaction, less post-operative pain and lower painkiller intake post-surgery. Thoma et al. [17] concluded no significant differences between the two groups regarding OHIP, but patients in the CTG group reported having consumed more painkillers and showed higher VAS levels. At the time of suture removal, the CTG group had 100% higher pain scores than the CM group. Hutton et al. Huber et al. and Thoma et al. (2016) [17,19,22] presented no statistically significant differences between groups. Thoma et al. (2020) [20] reported statistically higher OHIP scores for the CM group.
2.4. Esthetic Outcomes
Only three of the studies included in this review [20,21,22] collected data on esthetic outcomes using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) [24]. The PES consists of seven variables (e.g., soft tissue contour, mesial papilla, distal papilla etc.) and uses a scoring system ranging from 0 (lowest) to 2 (highest value) for each. Frizzera et al. [21] also utilized the modified Pink Esthetic Score (mPES) [25]. The authors of both studies used pictures taken with a periodontal probe held next to the area of interest at baseline, after six and after 12 months, which were evaluated and analyzed. The results are presented in Table 4.
2.5. Complications
Although explicitly mentioned only in three studies [17,18,21] as an outcome, we analyzed all articles for any reported complications during or after surgery. No implants or transplants failed, and only minor complications occurred. Hutton et al. [19] reported wound dehiscences for ten patients, seven of which occurred in the ADM-Group and three in the CTG group. According to the authors, these dehiscences were treated in the first four weeks and did not influence the final results. The authors of all studies concluded that soft tissue augmentation is a safe procedure, regardless of the materials used. Frizzera et al. [21] reported two patients in the CM group who developed an inflammation in the buccal area and an inflammation in the CTG group caused by a particle of the bone grafting material. The results are presented in Table 4.
2.6. Width of keratinized Mucosa
Five of the included studies reported the width of keratinized mucosa. The results are presented in Table 3. None of these studies showed significant differences between the groups.
2.7. Other Results Worth Mentioning
Cairo et al. [16] reported a mean surgical time of 35.5 min for augmentation using a CM versus 51.7 min when transplanting a CTG. Frizzera et al. [21] reported mesial and distal papilla migration and marginal peri-implant recessions. The papilla migration showed no statistically significant differences. While the control group (0.72 ± 0.52) and the CM-Group (0.42 ± 0.60) suffered marginal recessions after 12 months, the CTG group presented an elevated marginal ridge (−0.04 ± 0.3). The overall reported implant success rate was 100%. Thoma et al. and Cairo et al. [16,17] examined the peri-implant tissue health (BOP, probing depth). No statistical differences were reported.
2.8. Risk of Bias within Studies
Five of the included studies were classified as RCTs [16,17,18,19,21]. The risk of bias assessment is presented in detail in the additional materials and simplified in Table 5. Three authors were contacted for more information, because the study protocols were not publicly available. Only one author [18] replied and provided information in form of an internal protocol.
2.9. Sources of Funding
None of the included studies reported any conflict of interest. Cairo et al., Thoma et al., Huber et al. and Puzio et al. received funding from Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland. Hutton et al. was supported with an unrestricted grant from BioHorizons Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA. Frizzera et al. received funding in form of materials from Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland and Conexoa Sistemas de Prótese. All authors point out that the financing of studies did not influence the results.
3. Discussion
3.1. Summary of Evidence
The question we addressed with this systematic review is: “Can substitute materials provide similar results to the subepithelial connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation around dental implants?” We focused on soft tissue thickness as the outcome, because it is an important factor regarding peri-implant health [11,26,27,28] as well as esthetic results [24]. Although the protocols of the included RCTs were heterogeneous (different augmentation times, follow-ups, materials used etc.), it can be asserted that the both use of substitute materials and connective tissue grafts lead to a thickening of the peri-implant oral mucosa to a similar extent. These results confirm prior pilot studies [29,30]. Thoma et al. and Huber et al. even reported slightly thicker mucosal tissue for patients treated with a volume stable collagen matrix in comparison to CTGs, although not statistically relevant. It should be noted that the graft used by Hutton et al., which was also comparable to CTGs in terms of increasing oral mucosa thickness, is not yet authorized for use by European practitioners (Alloderm, BioHorizons). In none of the included studies did the xenogeneic collagen matrices (XCMs) or ADMs prove to be superior to the gold standard, the connective tissue graft. While in four studies [17,18,19,22] no significant difference could be shown Cairo et al. and Frizzera et al. [16,21] found significant differences favoring the CTG over XCMs.
Soft tissue augmentation has become standard care in conjunction with implants in the esthetic zone [31] and in immediate implant placement to stop or at least slow down dimensional alterations which can occur [26]. However, with regard to postoperative morbidity after these kinds of procedures, biomaterials have been found to increase patients’ comfort and acceptance. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements indicate that substitute materials could be an alternative for pain-sensitive patients as a second surgical area is not required. Other benefiting patient groups could be those who have a higher risk of post-surgical complications, for example, wound healing problems in diabetics, especially if the graft’s removal technique requires secondary wound healing or an increased risk of bleeding in patients who take anticoagulants.
If we take into account the possible risks of harvesting a soft tissue graft from the patient’s palate, and the difficulty of performing this procedure, the use of substitute materials may be preferred by surgeons who want to avoid the procedure of CTG removal and; therefore, lead to a higher acceptance of soft tissue thickening procedures from the clinician’s perspective. However, the authors explicitly point out that any operations to thicken soft tissue around implants, whether using CTGs or substitute materials, should only be performed by experienced and highly skilled practitioners. However, a similarity to bone augmentation cannot be denied. The harvesting of autologous bone, especially larger quantities or bone blocks, can be considered technically demanding and time-consuming. Since the introduction of bone replacement materials on the market, whether allogenic, xenogeneic or alloplastic, the acceptance of this treatment method among practitioners has increased. Bone augmentation before or during implantation is now part of standard care.
Peri-implant soft-tissue thickness has an impact on the shine-through of dental restorative materials [32]. Increased mucosal thickness could lead to lower shine-through effects and improve the aesthetic result, which can be seen as one of the most, or the most, important factors for the patient. Jung et al. were able to demonstrate in their in vitro experiment that there were no more translucency effects at a mucosa thickness of 3mm and this independent of the restoration material used. Cairo et al. [16] concluded that 79% of XCM- and 93% of CTG-treated sites achieved final soft tissue thickness ≥2.5 mm, which classifies as thick biotype [1]. Puzio et al. [18] surpassed these numbers and presented a thick biotype in all groups.
An interesting and for the practitioner possibly important aspect are the different ways to measure mucosal thickness and gingival biotype, which are seen as key determinants for treatment planning by some authors [33]. According to a well-known study [34], the gingival biotype itself can be reproducibly determined by visual assessment. In contrast to these findings, another study concluded that “simple visual inspection may not be considered a valuable method to identify the gingival biotype as nearly half of the high-risk patients are overlooked” [35]. This statement is supported by the results of Puzio et al. [18], who showed that ultrasound measurement led to a different biotype classification than measurement with a periodontal probe. CBCT scans, which are standard care for many surgeons in esthetically challenging areas, can be an alternative for preoperative thickness assessment. Although, in the opinion of the authors of this article, the measurement of soft tissue alone does not justify the resulting radiation exposure. However, if preoperative CBCT scans are performed before, for example, implantation, these data sets can be used to determine soft tissue thickness. A recent study [36] compared four different techniques to determine soft tissue thickness. Transgingival probing with a periodontal probe, transgingival probing with a stainless steel acupuncture needle and use of an ultrasonic device and a color-coded periodontal probe. The authors of the study conclude that the measurement with the periodontal probe and the ultrasound device provided the most reproducible results. The disadvantages of measurement with the periodontal probe are invasiveness, the need to eliminate pain and the lower accuracy. According to Slak et al. [37], ultrasound devices can measure the thickness of the gingiva to within two decimal places, whereas the periodontal probe only has a millimeter scale.
Another point that is unfortunately rarely mentioned but should not be forgotten is the origin of the biomaterials. The known xenogeneic matrices have a porcine origin and; therefore, for many people, for religious reasons, do not represent an alternative to CTGs.
3.2. Agreements and Disagreements with Previous Studies
In our opinion the meta-analysis of Gargallo-Albiol et al. [15] offers several points worthy of discussion. Methodologically, the first point that stands out is the very low number of matches (n = 133) in the systematic search. A precise and narrow search query has the advantage of reducing the work required for screening, but as limited retrieval might be not comprehensive studies can easily be overlooked. A study published in 2017 [21], was included in this review; however, was not included in the review mentioned above for unclear reasons. Gargolla-Albiol et al. [15] considered two studies [21,22] as low risk of bias, which were clearly defined as high risk in our review in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool [38] criteria, since no study protocols were available, and in the case of Thoma et al. [17], no sufficient information on the sequence generation process was provided. A main difference between the two reviews concerns the representation of the findings of Cairo et al. [21]: The above-mentioned review states, as Cairo’s conclusion, that there is no difference in gingival thickness between the two groups of the trial. However, if we look at the original paper, we see that Cairo presents a significant difference in favor of the CTG. In addition, Gargallo-Albiol et al. included a study of Sanz et al. [39], but did not recognize that not only was soft tissue grafted around implants, but also natural teeth were part of both groups (n = 6 of 20 sites in total). For this same reason and the lack of gingival thickness as an outcome parameter, we have not included the trial. The review under discussion included a study by Zeltner et al. [40]. However, it is not clearly stated that Zeltner performed his measurements on the patient pool of Thoma et al. [21], only the study of Huber et al. is mentioned. Zeltner et al. [40] determined the volumetric changes in a region of interest using scanned plaster models. The impressions were taken at the same time as Thoma et al. measured. Since Thoma already reported on the thickness of the gingiva as an outcome, we saw no reason to include Zeltner’s data. Nevertheless, we believe that this fact should have been presented more explicitly by Gargallo-Albiol. We classified Huber et al. [22] and Thoma et al. 2020 [20] as follow-up studies, because the intervention was part of another trial and only new measurements were performed. Finally, we would like to point out again that, in our opinion, a statistical meta-analysis is not appropriate due to the wide heterogeneity of study designs. As a result, our conclusion differs from the previously discussed meta-analysis.
3.3. Limitations
The main limitation of this systematic review was the heterogeneity and the small number of included studies. Due to the different methodical approaches used, we are not able to make any definitive statements regarding the superiority of CTGs over alternative materials which are universally applicable. In addition, a clear statement is made more difficult by the increased risk of bias of the individual studies. Only one study fulfilled the criteria for low risk of bias. Defective study designs that result, for example, in an inadequate allocation concealment should not be ignored. The influence of these errors on the overall result cannot; however, be determined by the authors of this review.
4. Materials and Methods
This systematic review was conducted according to the standards of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) Statement [39], the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions [41] and the AMSTAR 2 guidelines for systematic reviews that include randomized or nonrandomized studies of healthcare interventions [42].
4.1. Eligibility Criteria
The following search and eligibility criteria were defined according to PICO(S) analysis [43], which allowed us to convert our clinical findings and problems in a clearly defined question:
P—Population
I—intervention
C—Comparison
O—Outcome
The population was defined as patients receiving a soft tissue augmentation during implantation or for existing dental implants. The intervention was a soft tissue augmentation using a substitute material (e.g., xenogeneic collagen matrix or dermal allografts). The control group was treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft. The observed primary outcome was volume gain in mucosal tissue around the dental implant, and secondary outcomes were PROMs (Patient Reported Outcome Measurements), esthetic outcomes and complication rates. Eligible studies were randomized controlled clinical trials with at least 3-month follow-up duration and at least 10 participants per group.
4.2. Information Sources and Search
Two investigators (MB and ML) searched the electronic databases MEDLINE via OvidSB and all included databases in the Web of Science for relevant publications from 1995 on 20 June 2020. In addition, we hand-searched previous reviews on related topics. The search string comprised a combination of key words (MeSH) and free-text terms and was designed eligibility criteria. The search expression comprised three subexpressions: (1) On the dental implant, (2) on the transplant, and (3) on the main outcome (thickness of oral mucosa).
4.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction
Duplicate references were eliminated from the combined result set. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were derived from the eligibility criteria. Two investigators (AH and ML) reviewed the titles and abstracts independently and agreed on selection of studies that fit the predetermined inclusion criteria. Full-text articles were reviewed for included studies and for studies which could not be excluded based on title and abstract. The two investigators achieved consensus through discussion on which studies to include.
4.3.1. The Following Inclusion Criteria Were Applied
- Publication in the peer-reviewed literature;
- Full text available in English or German;
- (Randomized) controlled clinical trials;
- Investigated soft tissue grafting during implantation or around existing dental implants using subepithelial connective tissue grafts and substitute materials;
- Reported on soft tissue thickness;
- Follow-up of at least three months.
4.3.2. The Following Exclusion Criteria Were Applied
- Animal studies;
- In-Vitro studies.
The restrictions for inclusion are justified as followed: Only peer-reviewed literature was adopted to ensure that all studies meet high scientific and current standards. The authors of this review speak fluent German and English, publications in other languages would have made a detailed review far more difficult. In order to obtain a meaningful comparison of substitute materials and CTGs, randomized controlled trials were preferred. An observation period of three months was established as a minimum to detect medium-term changes in soft tissue thickness and to distinguish it from short-term results.
4.4. The following Items Were Extracted from the Included Studies
Author; Year of publication; Source; Country of origin; Assessed outcomes; Follow-up time; Sample size; Age of the population; Group distribution; Inclusion and exclusion criteria; Drop-outs; Complications; Method of surgery; Occurrence of bone augmentation; Materials used; Regions of implantation; Number of implants; Time of soft tissue augmentation; Consideration of the biotype; Post-implantation behavior; Prosthetic restoration of the implant; Method of outcome assessment; Data analysis; Findings.
4.5. Synthesis of Results
Relevant data was collected and summarized in tables and graphics. A narrative summary was created for each study. Due to the heterogeneity between the studies regarding materials used, time of augmentation, observation periods, etc., no meta-analysis could be performed.
4.6. Risk of Bias Assessment
Two authors (MB and ML) independently assessed the risk of bias for the included studies with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool [38] and resolved all conflicting judgements through discussion.
5. Conclusions
This systematic review is the second to assess the effectiveness of acellular dermal matrices and xenogenic collagen matrices in comparison to connective tissue grafts for the augmentation of oral mucosa around dental implants with long term results over a period up to three years. From an initial search result set of 1050 references, seven articles were included in this review. The methodical quality of the included studies was low overall: Only one study showed low risk of bias in all key domains. Characteristics of the studies were very heterogeneous, so no quantitative synthesis could be performed. Both the CTGs and the substitute materials resulted in increased mucosal thickness. Five studies showed no significant difference, while two presented a significant difference favoring the CTGs over alternative materials.
Soft tissue augmentation around dental implants is a safe procedure and leads to thicker mucosal tissue. The subepithelial connective tissue graft can still be regarded as the gold standard, but substitute materials may be an alternative for sites where only minor thickening is needed, for patients who are pain-sensitive or for patients who do not consent to harvesting from the palate or simply do not have enough tissue at the palate. Moreover, these materials also may be an alternative for dentists who are not trained to, or comfortable with, harvesting connective tissue grafts.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.L., M.B. and A.H.; methodology, M.L. and M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, M.B. and A.H.; formal analysis, M.L. and M.B.; investigation, M.L., M.B. and A.H.; data curation, M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, M.L., M.B. and A.H.; visualization, M.L. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments
The article processing charge was funded by the Baden-Wuerttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art and the University of Freiburg in the funding program Open Access Publishing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
| CM | Collagen matrix |
| ADM | Acellular dermal matrix |
| CTG | Connective tissue graft |
References
- Berglundh, T.; Lindhe, J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1996, 23, 971–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linkevicius, T.; Apse, P.; Grybauskas, S.; Puisys, A. The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: A 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 712–719. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, M.; Lindhe, J. Periodontal characteristics in individuals with varying form of the upper central incisors. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1991, 18, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baker, D.L.; Seymour, G.J. The possible pathogenesis of gingival recession. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1976, 3, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ericsson, I.; Lindhe, J. Recession in sites with Inadequate Width of the Keratinized Gingival An Experimental Study in the Dog. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1984, 11, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, C.D.J.; Chen, S.T. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2008, 19, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kois, J.C. Predictable Single Tooth Peri-Implant Esthetics: Five Diagnostic Keys. In Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J.: 1995); Dental Learning Systems Co., Inc.: Jamesburg, NJ, USA, 2001; Volume 22. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, A.; Fu, J.-H.; Wang, H.-L. Soft tissue biotype affects implant success. Implant. Dent. 2011, 20, e38–e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edel, A. Clinical Evaluation of Free Connective Tissue Grafts Used to Increase the Width of Keratinised Gingiva. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1974, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoma, D.S.; Buranawat, B.; Hammerle, C.H.; Held, U.; Jung, R.E. Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: A systematic review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, S77–S91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thoma, D.S.; Naenni, N.; Figuero, E.; Hammerle, C.H.F.; Schwarz, F.; Jung, R.E.; Sanz-Sanchez, I. Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 32–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pabst, A.M.; Happe, A.; Callaway, A.; Ziebart, T.; Stratul, S.I.; Ackermann, M.; Konerding, M.A.; Willershausen, B.; Kasaj, A. In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures. J. Periodont. Res. 2014, 49, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, E.P. AlloDerm: An effective alternative to palatal donor tissue for treatment of gingival recession. Dent. Today 2006, 25, 48, 50-2, quiz 52. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Thoma, D.S.; Hilbe, M.; Bienz, S.P.; Sancho-Puchades, M.; Hämmerle, C.H.; Jung, R.E. Palatal Wound Healing Using a Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix - Histological Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gargallo-Albiol, J.; Barootchi, S.; Tavelli, L.; Wang, H.-L. Efficacy of Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix to Augment Peri-implant Soft Tissue Thickness Compared with Autogenous Connective Tissue Graf: A Systems is Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2019, 34, 1053–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cairo, F.; Barbato, L.; Tonelli, P.; Batalocco, G.; Pagavino, G.; Nieri, M. Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for buccal soft tissue augmentation at implant site. A randomized, controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thoma, D.S.; Zeltner, M.; Hilbe, M.; Hammerle, C.H.; Husler, J.; Jung, R.E. Randomized controlled clinical study evaluating effectiveness and safety of a volume-stable collagen matrix compared to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 874–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puzio, M.; Blaszczyszyn, A.; Hadzik, J.; Dominiak, M. Ultrasound assessment of soft tissue augmentation around implants in the aesthetic zone using a connective tissue graft and xenogeneic collagen matrix-1-year randomised follow-up. Ann. Anat. Anat. Anz. 2018, 217, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hutton, C.G.; Johnson, G.K.; Barwacz, C.A.; Allareddy, V.; Avila-Ortiz, G. Comparison of two different surgical approaches to increase peri-implant mucosal thickness: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2018, 018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoma, D.S.; Gasser, T.J.W.; Jung, R.E.; Haemmerle, C.H.F. Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing implant sites augmented with a volume-stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft: 3-year data after insertion of reconstructions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frizzera, F.; de Freitas, R.M.; Munoz-Chavez, O.F.; Cabral, G.; Shibli, J.A.; Marcantonio, E., Jr. Impact of Soft Tissue Grafts to Reduce Peri-implant Alterations After Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization in Compromised Sockets. Int. J. Periodont. Restor. Dent. 2018, 018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, S.; Zeltner, M.; Hammerle, C.H.F.; Jung, R.E.; Thoma, D.S. Non-interventional 1-year follow-up study of peri-implant soft tissues following previous soft tissue augmentation and crown insertion in single-tooth gaps. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Slade, G.D.; Spencer, A.J. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Commun. Dent. Health 1994, 11, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
- Fürhauser, R.; Florescu, D.; Benesch, T.; Haas, R.; Mailath, G.; Watzek, G. Evaluation of soft tissue around single-tooth implant crowns: The pink esthetic score. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2005, 16, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Belser, U.C.; Schmid, B.; Higginbottom, F.; Buser, D. Outcome analysis of implant restorations located in the anterior maxilla: A review of the recent literature. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2004, 19, 30–42. [Google Scholar]
- Kan, J.Y.K.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Lozada, J.L.; Zimmerman, G. Facial gingival tissue stability following immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: A 2-to 8-year follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 179–187. [Google Scholar]
- Thoma, D.S.; Muhlemann, S.; Jung, R.E. Critical soft-tissue dimensions with dental implants and treatment concepts. Periodontology 2000 2014, 66, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsuda, H.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Kan, J.Y.; Roe, P.; Lozada, J.L.; Zimmerman, G. Peri-implant tissue response following connective tissue and bone grafting in conjunction with immediate single-tooth replacement in the esthetic zone: A case series. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2011, 26, 427–436. [Google Scholar]
- Froum, S.J.; Khouly, I.; Tarnow, D.P.; Froum, S.; Rosenberg, E.; Corby, P.; Kye, W.; Elian, N.; Schoor, R.; Cho, S.C. The use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix at the time of implant placement to increase the volume of buccal soft tissue. Int. J. Periodont. Restor. Dent. 2015, 35, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schallhorn, R.A.; McClain, P.K.; Charles, A.; Clem, D.; Newman, M.G. Evaluation of a porcine collagen matrix used to augment keratinized tissue and increase soft tissue thickness around existing dental implants. Int. J. Periodont. Restor. Dent. 2015, 35, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schneider, D.; Grunder, U.; Ender, A.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Jung, R.E. Volume gain and stability of peri-implant tissue following bone and soft tissue augmentation: 1-year results from a prospective cohort study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, R.E.; Sailer, I.; Hämmerle, C.H.F.; Attin, T.; Schmidlin, P. In vitro color changes of soft tissues caused by restorative materials. Int. J. Periodont. Restor. Dent. 2007, 27, 251–257. [Google Scholar]
- Kao, R.T.; Fagan, M.C.; Conte, G.J. Thick vs. thin gingival biotypes: A key determinant in treatment planning for dental implants. J. Calif. Dent. Assoc. 2008, 36, 193–198. [Google Scholar]
- de Rouck, T.; Eghbali, R.; Collys, K.; de Bruyn, H.; Cosyn, J. The gingival biotype revisited: Transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eghbali, A.; De Rouck, T.; De Bruyn, H.; Cosyn, J. The gingival biotype assessed by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 958–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kloukos, D.; Koukos, G.; Doulis, I.; Sculean, A.; Stavropoulos, A.; Katsaros, C. Gingival thickness assessment at the mandibular incisors with four methods: A cross-sectional study. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, 1300–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slak, B.; Daabous, A.; Bednarz, W.; Strumban, E.; Maev, R.G. Assessment of gingival thickness using an ultrasonic dental system prototype: A comparison to traditional methods. Ann. Anat. 2015, 199, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moher, D. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeltner, M.; Jung, R.E.; Hammerle, C.H.; Husler, J.; Thoma, D.S. Randomized controlled clinical study comparing a volume-stable collagen matrix to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: Linear volumetric soft tissue changes up to 3 months. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2017, 44, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Green, S.; Higgins, J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Cochrane Library: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Shea, B.J.; Reeves, B.C.; Wells, G.; Thuku, M.; Hamel, C.; Moran, J.; Moher, D.; Tugwell, P.; Welch, V.; Kristjansson, E.; et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017, 358, j4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, S.A.; Forrest, J.L. Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2001, 1, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Study selection process.
Figure 2.
Left side (A): Average thickness of mucosa at baseline (circles) and at the end of the observation period (triangles) for different augmentation materials. Error bars indicate one standard deviation. Right side (B): Absolute change of mucosal thickness between baseline and end of observation period. X-axis scales are not proportional. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft.
Figure 2.
Left side (A): Average thickness of mucosa at baseline (circles) and at the end of the observation period (triangles) for different augmentation materials. Error bars indicate one standard deviation. Right side (B): Absolute change of mucosal thickness between baseline and end of observation period. X-axis scales are not proportional. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft.
Table 1.
Study characteristics and authors’ conclusions. IG: Intervention Group. CG: Control Group. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. PROMS: Patient reported outcome measurements.
Table 1.
Study characteristics and authors’ conclusions. IG: Intervention Group. CG: Control Group. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. PROMS: Patient reported outcome measurements.
| Type of Study | Groups and Transplants Used | Time of Augmentation | No. of Patients/Sites | Follow-Up (Months) | No. of Patients/Sites | Reported Outcomes | Age of Participants | Smokers Accepted | Author’s Conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cairo et al. 2018 [16] | RCT | IG:Xenogeneic collagen matrix (Mucograft, Geistlich) vs. CG:Connective tissue graft | Second stage surgery (No further information) | 60/60 | 6 | 60/60 | 1. Changes of mucosal thickness 2. Width of keratinized gingiva 3. PROMs 4. Surgery time | CM 50.3 ± 12.4 CTG 48.3 ± 11.8 | Yes (<10 cigarettes per day) | Significant difference favouring CGT |
| Hutton et al. 2018 [19] | RCT | IG: Allograft (Alloderm, BioHorizons) vs. CG: Connective tissue graft | During implant surgery | 20/20 | 4 | 20/20 | 1. Changes of mucosal thickness 2. Width of keratinized gingiva 3. PROMs 4. Modified wound healing index | 55.5 ± 11.5 | Not accepted | No significant difference |
| Frizzera et al. 2018 [20] | RCT | Xenogeneic collagen matrix (Mucograft, Geistlich) vs. Connective tissue graft vs. No graft | During IIPP-Surgery (Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalisation) | 24/24 | 12 | 24/24 | 1. Marginal periimplant recession after IIPP 2. Changes of mucosal thickness 3. PES and mPES 4. Facial bone thickness 5. Papilla migration 6. Periodontal health 7. Implant Success-rate | 23–65 | Not accepted | Significant difference favouring CGT |
| Puzio et al. 2018 [18] | RCT | See table (/) | 3 months prior or 3 months after implant placement | 57/75 | 12 | 57/75 | 1. Changes of mucosal thickness 2. Biotype 3. Implant Success-rate | 18–60 | Yes (<10 cigarettes per day) | Significant difference favouring CGT |
| Thoma et al. 2016 [17] | RCT | IG: Xenogeneic collagen matrix (Fibro-Gide, Geistlich) vs. CG: Connective tissue graft | 6 weeks to 6 months after implant placement | 20/20 | 3 | 20/20 | 1. Changes of mucosal thickness 2. Width of keratinized gingiva 3. PROMs 4. Histological evaluation 5. Periodontal health 6. Safety evaluations | CM 43.8 ± 13.2 CTG 42.7 ± 19.1 | Yes (<10 cigarettes per day) | No significant difference |
| Huber et al. 2018 [22] Thoma et al. 2020 [20] | FU | See Thoma et al. [20] | See Thoma et al. [20] | 20/20 17/17 | 12 (after insertion of final restoration → 15 months after surgery) 36 months | 20/20 | 1. Changes of mucosal thickness 2. PES and PES 3. Width of keratinized gingiva 4. Periodontal health 5. PROMs | See Thoma et al. [20] | See Thoma et al. [20] | No significant difference |
Table 2.
Soft tissue thickness. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. ADM: Acellular dermal matrix. BL: Baseline. FU: Follow-Up.
Table 2.
Soft tissue thickness. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. ADM: Acellular dermal matrix. BL: Baseline. FU: Follow-Up.
| Time of Augmentation | Follow-Up (Months) | Measurement- Technique for Soft Tissue Thickness | Outcome Soft Tissue Thickness (mm) | Change in ST-Thickness (mm) BL–Last FU | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cairo et al. 2018 [16] | Second stage surgery (No further information) | 6 | Endodontic needle (1mm coronal to mucogingival junction) | CM | CTG | CM 0.9 | CTG 1.4 | |||||||||||
| Baseline | 2.1 ±0.6 | 2.1 ±0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
| 3 months | 2.8 ±0.7 | 3.1 ±0.5 | ||||||||||||||||
| 6 months | 3.0 ±0.7 | 3.5 ±0.6 | ||||||||||||||||
| Hutton et al. 2018 [19] | During implant surgery | 4 | CAD/CAM produced stent with 3 measurement points (1, 3 and 5 mm [B1-B3] apical from the mucosal margin) and endodontic needle | CTG B1 | CTG B2 | CTG B3 | CTG B1 | CTG B2 | CTG B3 | |||||||||
| Baseline | 3.05 ± 1.28 | 2.95 ± 1.17 | 1.65 ± 0.75 | 0.44 ± 2.04 | 1.2 ± 1.48 | 1.2 ± 0.89 | ||||||||||||
| Final | 3.61 ± 1.11 | 4.15 ± 1.33 | 2.85 ± 0.58 | |||||||||||||||
| ADM B1 | ADM B2 | ADM B3 | ADM B1 | ADM B2 | ADM B3 | |||||||||||||
| Baseline | 2.85 ± 1.40 | 2.40 ± 1.02 | 1.70 ± 0.67 | 0.05 ± 1.57 | 0.85 ± 1.29 | 1.45 ± 1.17 | ||||||||||||
| Final | 2.90 ± 0.94 | 3.25 ± 1.30 | 3.15 ± 0.94 | |||||||||||||||
| Frizzera et al. 2018 [21] | During IIPP-Surgery (Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalisation) | 12 | CBCT with a small field of view (2mm below the gingival margin) | Control | CM | CTG | Control 1.11 | CM 1.12 | CTG 2.06 | |||||||||
| Baseline | 1 ± 0.18 | 0.98 ± 0.21 | 0.98 ± 0.29 | |||||||||||||||
| 6 months | 2.04 ± 0.43 | 2.05 ± 0.41 | 2.82 ± 0.40 | |||||||||||||||
| 12 months | 2.11 ± 0.60 | 2.10 ± 0.54 | 3.04 ± 0.61 | |||||||||||||||
| Puzio et al. 2018 [18] | 3 months prior (II) or 3 months after (III) implant placement a = CM b= CTG | 12 | Ultrasonic device (Pirop®, Echoson) (Point 1: on the line connecting the two cemento-enamel junctions of both adjectent teeth; Point 2: On the mucogingival junction | I | IIa | IIb | IIIa | IIIb | I | IIa | IIb | IIIa | IIIb | |||||
| Point 1 | BL | 1.39 ± 0.65 | 1.30 ± 0.46 | 1.30 ± 0.23 | 1.21 ± 0.49 | 1.15 ± 0.40 | Point 1 | 0.7 ± 0.8 | 1.16 ± 0.7 | 1.76 ± 0.7 | 0.89 ± 0.6 | 1.52 ± 1.0 | ||||||
| Point 2 | BL | 1.10 ± 0.44 | 1.04 ± 0.47 | 0.75 ± 0.26 | 1.01 ± 0.41 | 0.90 ± 0.30 | ||||||||||||
| Point 1 | 12 m | 2.10 ± 0.66 | 2.46 ± 0.75 | 3.06 ± 0.61 | 2.10 ± 0.50 | 2.68 ± 0.96 | Point 2 | 0.35 ± 0.6 | 1.0 ± 0.7 | 1.36 ± 0.6 | 0.57 ± 0.6 | 1.15 ± 0.5 | ||||||
| Point 2 | 12 m | 1.46 ± 0.34 | 2.04 ± 0.61 | 2.11 ± 0.70 | 1.57 ± 0.52 | 2.05 ± 0.56 | ||||||||||||
| Thoma et al. 2016 [17] | 6 weeks to 6 months after implant placement | 3 | CAD/CAM produced stent and endodontic needle 3 points of measurement (occlusal, buccal and apical) | Baseline | ||||||||||||||
| CM | CTG | CM | CTG | |||||||||||||||
| Occlusal | 3.4 ± 1.0 | 4.2 ± 1.9 | 1.4 ± 1.4 | 0.8 ± 1.8 | ||||||||||||||
| Buccal | 2.9 ± 1.5 | 4.1 ± 2.0 | 1.1 ± 1.4 | 0.8 ± 2.2 | ||||||||||||||
| Apical | 2.6 ± 2.3 | 3.4 ± 1.8 | 0.9 ± 1.9 | 1.6 ± 2.6 | ||||||||||||||
| FU-90 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Occlusal | 4.25 | 4.0 | ||||||||||||||||
| Buccal | 4.0 | 5.3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Appical | 2.5 | 5.0 | ||||||||||||||||
| Huber et al. 2018 [22] Thoma et al. 2020 [20] | See Thoma et al. [17] | 12 (after insertion of final restoration) /36 months | Endodontic needle (1mm apical of the margo mucosae) | CM | CTG | CM | CTG | |||||||||||
| Baseline | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | BL | 6 months | –0.3 ± 0.9 | 0.3 ± 1.0 | ||||||||||||
| 6 months | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | BL | 12 months | –0.4 ± 0.9 | 0.4 ± 1.4 | ||||||||||||
| 12 months | 2.8 ± 0.7 | 3.1 ± 1.3 | BL | 36 months | 0.44 ± 1.1 | 1.1 ± 1.5 | ||||||||||||
| 36 months | 3.6 ± 1.5 | 3.8 ± 1.5 | ||||||||||||||||
Table 3.
Secondary Outcomes I. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. FGG: Free gingival graft. ADM: Acellular dermal matrix. CTL: Control. BOP: Bleeding on probing. PPD: Pocket probing depth.
Table 3.
Secondary Outcomes I. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. FGG: Free gingival graft. ADM: Acellular dermal matrix. CTL: Control. BOP: Bleeding on probing. PPD: Pocket probing depth.
| Surgical Technique | Width of Keratinized Gingiva (mm) | Surgery Time (min) | Initial Phenotype | Periimplant Tissue Health (BOP, PPD) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cairo et al. 2018 [16] | Preparation of split-thickness-flap.In the test group, first a collagen matrix was secured supraperiosteally, after which a second matrix was applied over the first. The matrices were sutured to the periosteum (absorbable sutures). Thus the total thickness was 6mm. In the control group, the connective tissue transplants were harvested from the palate via trap-door approach or as deepithialized FGG and sutured to the periosteum. The thickness was about 1mm throughout. | CTG | CM | CTG 51.7 ± 7 CM 35.5 ± 9.4 | Not reported | No statistically significant differences | ||
| Baseline | 3.5 ± 1.7 | 3.1 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Final | 4.4 ± 1.5 | 4.3 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Hutton et al. 2018 [19] | A combination of full thickness and partial thickness flap was prepared as the recipient bed for the graft. In the control group, a connective tissue graft was taken from the palate. The ADM graft of the test group was adapted and processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, taking care to ensure that the dimensions were similar to those of the control group. | CTG | ADM | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported | ||
| Baseline | 5.30 ± 1.16 | 4.95 ± 1.38 | ||||||
| Final | 4.45 ± 1.14 | 4.50 ± 0.94 | ||||||
| Change | –0.85 ± 1.13 | –0.45 ± 1.30 | ||||||
| Frizzera et al. 2018 [21] | In the CM and CTG group, the buccal mucosa was undermined and a pocket was prepared without damaging the papillae. The height of the grafts was always 6mm, the length was determined by the distance between the mesial and distal papilla. In the CTG group, a 1.5mm thick palatal mucosal graft was harvested and the epithelial portion was removed with a 15C blade. In the CM group, the graft was trimmed according to the specifications.The grafts were sutured to the gingival margin. In addition, all bone defects were covered with a membrane (Bio-Gide, Geistlich) and the space between implant and membrane was filled with Bio-Oss Collagen (Geistlich). | Not reported | Not reported | Thin/Thick | Not reported | |||
| CTG | 5/3 | |||||||
| CM | 4/4 | |||||||
| CTL | 5/3 | |||||||
| Puzio et al. 2018 [18] | The recipient bed was prepared as a mucosa flap ("envelope technique"). The roots of the adjacent teeth were smoothed with a fine diamond and the adjacent papillae were deepithelialized. The BGT was removed from the palate using the single-incision technique. The CMX graft was processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For suturing, the flap was placed slightly above the CEJ. | Not reported | Not reported | All patients presented a thin biotype | Not reported | |||
| Thoma et al. 2016 [17] | A mucoperiosteal flap (full thickness flap) was prepared, which was split at the border to the buccal bone portion (partial thickness flap). A pocket was then formed buccally to receive the graft and buccal relief incisions were made to allow tension-free wound closure. In the test group the collagen matrix graft was cut accordingly. In the control group the graft was removed from the palate using the single incision technique. The grafts were placed in the prepared pockets and secured with sutures, then the wound was closed. | Data not shown, but no statistically significant differences reported at the target site. | Not reported | Not reported | Data not shown, but no statistically significant differences reported at the target site. | |||
| Huber et al. 2018 [22] | See Thoma et al. [17] | CTG | CM | Not reported | Not reported | No statistically significant differences | ||
| Baseline | 3.2 ± 1.4 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | ||||||
| Final | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 2.1 ± 1.2 | ||||||
| Change | 0.0 ± 1.2 | –0.2 ± 0.7 | ||||||
| Thoma et al. 2020 [20] | See Thoma et al. [17] | No statistically significant differences | Not reported | Not reported | No statistically significant differences | |||
Table 4.
Secondary Outcomes II. PROMS: Patient reported outcome measurements. PES: Pink Esthetic Score. mPES: Modified pink esthetic score. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. VAS: Visual analog scale. OHIP: Oral health impact.
Table 4.
Secondary Outcomes II. PROMS: Patient reported outcome measurements. PES: Pink Esthetic Score. mPES: Modified pink esthetic score. CM: Collagen matrix. CTG: Connective tissue graft. VAS: Visual analog scale. OHIP: Oral health impact.
| Assessment of PROMs | Outcomes of PROMs | Complications | Implant Success Rate | Esthetic Evaluation | PES/mPES-Scores | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cairo et al. 2018 [16] | 100-point VAS (Visual Analog Scale) to assess postoperative discomfort and overall satisfaction | CTG: 35 ± 23 CM: 17 ± 13 Patients in the CM group experienced significantly less postoperative pain (13.0 ± 10 vs. 37.0 ± 15; p < 0.0001), consumed less anti-inflammatory medication (2.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.7; p < .0001), and fewer uncomfortable days (1.2 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7; p < 0.0001). No significant differences regarding aesthetic outcome. | 1mm soft tissue recession of one patient in the CTG group. | 100% | Not reported | - | |||||||
| Hutton et al. 2018 [19] | 100-point VAS (Visual Analog Scale) to assess postoperative discomfort and overall satisfaction | Discomfort (1–100) | Three patients in the control group and seven patients in the experimental group showed postoperative wound dehiscence, which was treated within the first 4 weeks and, according to the authors, did not influence the final result. | 100% | Not reported | - | |||||||
| CTG | ADM | ||||||||||||
| 2 weeks | 23.60 ± 24.71 | 10.10 ± 7.78 | |||||||||||
| 4 weeks | 10.40 ± 16.51 | 4.40 ± 4.25 | |||||||||||
| 8 weeks | 9.70 ± 15.54 | 4.40 ± 7.99 | |||||||||||
| 16 weeks | 7.50 ± 15.48 | 6.70 ± 9.53 | |||||||||||
| Overall Satisfaction (1–100) | |||||||||||||
| CTG | ADM | ||||||||||||
| 98.30 ± 2.26 | 94.80 ± 7.31 | ||||||||||||
| Frizzera et al. 2018 [21] | Not reported | - | One patient in the CTG group lost the temporary crown after 4 months. Two patients of the CM group showed inflammation of the facial peri-implant tissue. One particle of the bone grafting material caused soft tissue inflammation in one patient of the CTL group. | 100% | PES and mPES at baseline and after 6 month and 12 months | PES | Control | CM | CTG | ||||
| Baseline | 10.75 (2.05) | 10.63 (1.84) | 9.37 (1.9) | ||||||||||
| 12 months | 9.87 (1.64) | 10 (1.3) | 10.75 (1.38) | ||||||||||
| mPES | Control | CM | CTG | ||||||||||
| Baseline | 7.00 (1.73) | 7.75 (0.70) | 7.00 (1.41) | ||||||||||
| 12 months | 6.62 (1.59) | 7.12 (0.99) | 7.87 (0.99) | ||||||||||
| Puzio et al. 2018 [18] | Not reported | - | No complications reported. | 100% | Not reported | - | |||||||
| Thoma et al. 2016 [17] | Amount of painkillers consumed; VAS for postoperative discomfort, OHIP | Patients in the CTG group reported having consumed more painkillers and showed higher VAS levels. At the time of suture removal, the CTG group had 100% higher pain scores than the CM group. | In both groups, one treatment was classified as unsuccessful because no increase in volume was observed. | 100% | Not reported | - | |||||||
| Huber et al. 2018 [22] | OHIP | The average score for the OHIP questionnaire for both groups was 0 consistently. | See Thoma et al. [17] | 100% | PES at baseline and after 6 months and 12 months | PES | |||||||
| CM | CTG | ||||||||||||
| Baseline | 9.6 ± 1.6 | 8.4 ± 3.5 | |||||||||||
| 6 month | 8.8 ± 1.8 | 9.8 ± 3.3 | |||||||||||
| 12 month | 8.9 ± 2.4 | 9.1 ± 2.1 | |||||||||||
| Thoma et al. 2020 [20] | OHIP | CM 0.5 CTG 0.0 Significant difference | See Thoma et al. [17] | 100% | PES at 36 months | CM | CTG | ||||||
| 8.5 | 10 | ||||||||||||
Table 5.
RoB-Assesement.
| Hutton 2018 | Cairo 2018 | Frizzera 2018 | Puzio 2018 | Thoma 2016 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random sequence allocation |  |  |  |  |  |
| Allocation concealment |  |  |  |  |  |
| Blinding of participants and personnel |  |  |  |  |  |
| Blinding of outcome assessment |  |  |  |  |  |
| Incomplete outcome data |  |  |  |  |  |
| Selective reporting |  |  |  |  |  |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lissek, M.; Boeker, M.; Happe, A. How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145043
AMA Style
Lissek M, Boeker M, Happe A. How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2020; 21(14):5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145043
Chicago/Turabian StyleLissek, Martin, Martin Boeker, and Arndt Happe. 2020. "How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21, no. 14: 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145043
APA StyleLissek, M., Boeker, M., & Happe, A. (2020). How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(14), 5043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21145043
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
