Soft-Tissue Augmentation around Dental Implants with a Connective Tissue Graft (CTG) and Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix (CMX)—5-Year Follow-Up

Abstract

Proper horizontal and vertical thickness of the gingival connective tissue has been proven to be one of the success criteria in dental implant and reconstructive surgery. When thin tissue is found, gingiva augmentation methods can be used to increase the quality and volume of the tissue. Many methods have been described, among them pedicle soft-tissue flaps or autogenic tissue grafts. As an alternative to patients’ own tissue, xenogenic materials can be used for grafting. The fundamental issue is to choose a material that will ensure the maximum therapeutic effect, while also minimizing the negative influence on the patient’s health. The aim of this study was to compare gingival augmentation procedures using a palatal connective tissue graft (CTG) and an xenogenic soft-tissue substitute, Geistlich Mucograft (xenogeneic collagen matrix; CMX), and assess whether the timing of the graft surgery influences the clinical outcomes. The original study was a randomized control trial with a total of 75 implants placed. The patients received the soft-tissue thickening 3 months before the implant placement or 3 months after the implant placement (depending on the group). A connective tissue graft (CTG) or Geistlich Mucograft were used (depending on the group). For both the CTG and Geistlich Mucograft, better clinical outcomes were observed for maintaining the alveolar bone level and the thickness of the attached gingiva compared to the control group with no gingival augmentation. The Geistlich Mucograft showed good clinical performance in comparison to the control. Soft-tissue augmentation with the CTG before the implant placement was found to be most efficient method in terms of a stable increase of the tissue thickness since, throughout the entire observation period, the greatest increase of 1.035 mm (SD = 0.73 mm) in thickness was observed. Statistically important differences in the tissue thickness baseline compared after 5 years were observed for groups G1 vs. G2b (no augmentation vs. CTG before), G1 vs. G3b (no augmentation vs. CTG after) and for groups G2b vs. G3a (CTG before vs. CMX after).