Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data
- 455 Downloads
The objective of this study was to test whether or not soft tissue augmentation with a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) leads to similar volume gain around dental implants compared to autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG).
Materials and methods
In 12 adult beagle dogs, immediate implants were placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration. After 25–45 weeks, soft tissue augmentation was randomly performed using VCMX, SCTG, or a sham-operated control. Impressions were taken pre-op and post-op (tissue augmentation) and again at sacrifice after healing periods of 4, 8, and 24 weeks. They were then digitized to allow for superimposition. Values of linear and volumetric changes were calculated.
The median increase (pre-op to post-op) in buccal volume measured 0.92 mm for VCMX, 1.47 mm for SCTG, and 0.24 mm for SH. The values (pre-op to sacrifice) were − 0.25 mm for VCMX, 0.52 mm for SCTG, and − 0.06 mm for group SH. The median ridge width 2 mm below the crest measured − 0.26 mm for VCMX, 0.53 mm for SCTG, and − 0.15 mm for SH (pre-op to sacrifice).
Volume augmentation using VCMX and SCTG resulted in an increase in ridge dimension (pre- to post-op). During the follow-up, the volume decreased in all three groups to a level close to the situation prior to surgery.
Soft tissue volume augmentation around dental implants is usually performed using the patient’s own tissue. This therapy is associated with an increased morbidity due to a second surgical site. Soft tissue volume at implant sites can be augmented using VCMX and SCTG. The gain on top of the ridge appears not to be stable during the follow-up in both groups.
KeywordsCollagen matrix Soft tissue Soft tissue augmentation Grafting Dental implants
The authors would like to express thanks to the team of Biomatech Namsa, Lyon, France, for excellent support in animal care and housing. The support and expertise of Sibylle Huber, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland, is highly acknowledged. The help of Gisela Müller, study monitor at the Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, is highly appreciated.
The study was supported by a research grant of Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 7.Schneider D, Grunder U, Ender A, Hammerle CH, Jung RE (2011) Volume gain and stability of peri-implant tissue following bone and soft tissue augmentation: 1-year results from a prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 22:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01987.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Jepsen K, Jepsen S, Zucchelli G, Stefanini M, de Sanctis M, Baldini N, Greven B, Heinz B, Wennstrom J, Cassel B, Vignoletti F, Sanz M (2013) Treatment of gingival recession defects with a coronally advanced flap and a xenogeneic collagen matrix: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 40:82–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Schmitt CM, Moest T, Lutz R, Wehrhan F, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA (2016) Long-term outcomes after vestibuloplasty with a porcine collagen matrix (Mucograft(R) ) versus the free gingival graft: a comparative prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 27:e125–e133. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12575 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Pabst AM, Happe A, Callaway A, Ziebart T, Stratul SI, Ackermann M, Konerding MA, Willershausen B, Kasaj A (2014) In vitro and in vivo characterization of porcine acellular dermal matrix for gingival augmentation procedures. J Periodontal Res 49:371–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Rebele SF, Zuhr O, Schneider D, Jung RE, Hurzeler MB (2014) Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part II Volumetric studies on healing dynamics and gingival dimensions. J Clin Periodontol 41:593–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12254 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Thoma DS, Naenni N, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Jung RE (2017) Soft tissue volume augmentation at dental implant sites using a volume stable three-dimensional collagen matrix—histological outcomes of a preclinical study. J Clin Periodontol 44:185–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Thoma DS, Hammerle CHF, Cochran DL, Jones AA, Gorlach C, Uebersax L, Mathes S, Graf-Hausner U, Jung RE (2011) Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices in the dog mandible—a histological analysis. J Clin Periodontol 38:1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01786.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Thoma DS, Jung RE, Schneider D, Cochran DL, Ender A, Jones AA, Gorlach C, Uebersax L, Graf-Hausner U, Hammerle CHF (2010) Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices: a volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol 37:659–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01581.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Mathes SH, Wohlwend L, Uebersax L, von Mentlen R, Thoma DS, Jung RE, Gorlach C, Graf-Hausner U (2010) A bioreactor test system to mimic the biological and mechanical environment of oral soft tissues and to evaluate substitutes for connective tissue grafts. Biotechnol Bioeng 107:1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.22893 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hilbe M, Hammerle CH, Husler J, Jung RE (2016) 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 43:874–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12588 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Akcalı A, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Sun C, Petrie A, Nibali L and Donos N (2016) What is the effect of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone loss around dental implants? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants ResGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mir-Mari J, Benic GI, Valmaseda-Castellon E, Hammerle CH and Jung RE (2016) Influence of wound closure on the volume stability of particulate and non-particulate GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Part II. Clin Oral Implants Res doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12845
- 29.Kolerman R, Nissan J, Rahmanov A, Zenziper E, Slutzkey S, Tal H (2016) Radiological and biological assessment of immediately restored anterior maxillary implants combined with GBR and free connective tissue graft. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18:1142–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12417 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Clementini M, Tiravia L, De Risi V, Vittorini Orgeas G, Mannocci A, de Sanctis M (2015) Dimensional changes after immediate implant placement with or without simultaneous regenerative procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 42:666–677. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12423 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Schmitt CM, Matta RE, Moest T, Humann J, Gammel L, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA (2016) Soft tissue volume alterations after connective tissue grafting at teeth: the subepithelial autologous connective tissue graft versus a porcine collagen matrix—a pre-clinical volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol 43:609–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12547 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar