Affiliation:
1. The McGuire Institute (iMc – practice‐based clinical research network) Houston Houston Texas USA
2. University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio San Antonio Texas USA
3. Private Practice Aurora Aurora Colorado USA
4. Private Practice Houston Houston Texas USA
5. Private Practice Richmond Richmond Virginia USA
6. Private Practice Kenosha Kenosha Wisconsin USA
7. School of Dentistry Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia USA
8. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundUsing a single‐blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter, practice‐based clinical trial, a volume‐stable collagen matrix (VCMX) was compared with connective tissue graft (CTG) for soft tissue augmentation around existing dental implants.MethodsSixty patients (31 VCMX and 31 CTG) were included. The primary outcome was a soft tissue thickness change 3 mm below the gingival margin (GM). Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, such as keratinized tissue widths (KTw), probing pocket depths, and pink esthetic scores, and patient‐reported outcomes (PRO).ResultsThere were no significant differences between test and control patient demographics or clinical measures throughout the 1‐year study. VCMX “grafts” were by design larger than CTG, and surgery time was less (27% less, p = 0.0005). Three millimeters below the GM (primary endpoint), tissue thickness increase was noninferior for VCMX compared with CTG (0.93 ± 0.80 mm vs. 1.10 ± 0.51 mm, respectively), inferior (by 0.25 mm) at 1 mm, and noninferior at 5 mm. Postoperative pain was significantly less for VCMX patients (p < 0.0001), but all other PRO measures, including esthetics and satisfaction, improved similarly for both therapies.ConclusionsGiven the inclusion criteria for this study, namely soft tissue augmentation around existing implants with some evidence of KTw and minimal recession, VCMX provided soft tissue thickness and volume increases similar (noninferior) to CTG. Clinical measures and PRO were similar between therapies—site sensitivity and esthetics improved similarly for both therapies—but surgery time and pain following surgery were significantly less for VCMX.
Subject
Periodontics,General Medicine