Affiliation:
1. 1 Department of Periodontics, Dental Implants Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
2. 2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
This study was done to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies on the efficacy of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in increasing the soft tissue thickness (STT) and keratinized mucosal width (KMW) around dental implants. The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched by July 2020 to retrieve relevant studies. Depending upon the heterogeneity of included studies, the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI was calculated using either fixed or random-effects model. Based on the meta-analysis of 6 studies, the effect of ADM on STT and KMW was significant (WMD: 1.07 [95% CI: 0.34–1.79], P = .004, and WMD: 1.99 [95% CI: 0.88–3.09], P < .001, respectively). Further, a comparison between the efficacy of the ADM and the control group, which included the autogenous soft tissue augmentation techniques, showed no statistically significant differences between groups (STT: WMD: 0.24 [95% CI: −0.26 to 0.74], P = .161 and KMW: WMD: −0.23 [95% CI: −0.68 to 0.22], P = .324). The subgroup analysis showed that simultaneous augmentation and implant placement were increased by 0.23 mm in the KMW, and the placement of ADM around loaded implants caused 0.5 mm decrease in the KMW, which was not statistically significant. Accordingly, it is possible to substitute ADM for soft tissue augmentation around dental implants.
Publisher
American Academy of Implant Dentistry
Reference84 articles.
1. Adell
R
,
LekholmU,
RocklerB,
BrånemarkP-I. A
15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw.
Int J Oral Surg.
1981;10(6):
387–416.
2. Albrektsson
T
,
ZarbG,
WorthingtonP,
ErikssonA.
The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants1986;1(1):
11–25.
3. Pjetursson
B
,
AsgeirssonA,
ZwahlenM,
SailerI.
Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants2014;29:
308–324.
4. Pjetursson
BE
,
ThomaD,
JungR,
ZwahlenM,
ZembicA.
A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years.
Clin Oral Implants Res.
2012;23:
22–38.
5. Buser
D
,
SennerbyL,
De BruynH.
Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions.
Periodontology2017;73(1):
7–21.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献