Comparative analysis of various soft tissue augmentation technique effectiveness around implants

Relevance. Today soft tissue augmentation is performed with autogenous and xenografts to achieve optimal gingival parameters around implants. It is worth noting the lack of clinical studies aimed at a comparative analysis of the postoperative condition of patients and aesthetic parameters.

Purpose. The study aimed to evaluate the clinical advantages and disadvantages of collagen matrix and autografts in soft tissue augmentation around dental implants.

Material and methods. Thirty-two patients with soft tissue thickness deficiency around intended implantation formed two groups: Group 1 had a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) during surgery, and Group 2 had a xenogeneic collagen matrix (CM). In the postoperative period, we assessed the surgery duration, the severity of postoperative pain (VAS scale) and ooedema, daily NSAID dose, quality of life (OHIP-14), and pink aesthetics (PES).

Results. The surgery duration was 30.31 ± 6.98 (SD) and 26.31 ± 6.81 (SD) minutes in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.111). Patients in group 1 had more pronounced postoperative pain. On day one after the surgery, the mean value was 3.06 ± 1.73 (SD) in group 1 and 1.94 ± 1.48 (SD) in group 2 (p = 0.002). Patients in group 1 more often took NSAIDs on days 1 and 3 after surgery: 2.00 (Q1 1.00, Q3 3.00) and 1.50 (Q1 0.00, Q3 2.00), respectively, than patients in group 2: 1.00 (Q1 1.00, Q3 2.00) and 0.00 (Q1 0.00, Q3 1.00). Patients of Group 2 showed a more pronounced collateral oedema on days 1 and 3 (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the reduction in quality of life between patients in both groups. The aesthetic results in Group 1 were better than in Group 2 by the shape of the alveolar ridge and marginal soft tissue level. There was no difference in the colour of soft tissues between the surgical area and surrounding tissues in almost all patients.

Conclusion. The CM provides a more comfortable postoperative period but, however, leads to more pronounced collateral ooedema. The SCTG demonstrates the best aesthetic result of the treatment.

1. Rakic M, Galindo-Moreno P, Monje A, Radovanovic S, Wang H-L, Cochran D, et al. How frequent does peri-implantitis occur? A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;22:1805–16. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2276-y

2. De Angelis P, De Angelis S, Passarelli PC, Liguori MG, Pompa G, Papi P, et al. Clinical comparison of a xenogeneic collagen matrix versus subepithelial autogenous connective tissue graft for augmentation of soft tissue around implants. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021;50(7):956–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2020.11.014

3. Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang H-L. Efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix to augment periimplant soft tissue thickness compared with autogenous connective tissue graft: A systematic review and metaanalysis. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2019;34(5):1059–69. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7497

4. Thoma DS, Naenni N, Figuero E, Hämmerle CHF, Schwarz F, Jung RE, et al. Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018;29:32–49. doi: 10.1111/clr.13114

5. Akhmadova MA, Khyshov VB, Gergieva TF, Batyrbekova FR, Khulaev IV. Multivariate assessment of implantological treatment complications (review). Hospital medicine: science and practice. 2022;5(2):29-32 (In Russ.). doi: 10.34852/GM3CVKG.2022.90.67.006

6. Tarasenko S, Ashurko I, Taschieri S, Repina S, Esayan A, Corbella S. Comparative analysis of methods to increase the amount of keratinized mucosa before stage-two surgery: a randomized controlled study. Quintessence International. 2020;51(5):374–87. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a44216

7. Verardi S, Orsini M, Lombardi T, Ausenda F, Testori T, Pulici A, et al. Comparison between two different techniques for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: Porcine dermal matrix graft versus tenting screw. Journal of Periodontology. 2020;91(8):1011–7. doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0447

8. Puzio M, Hadzik J, Błaszczyszyn A, Gedrange T, Dominiak M. Soft tissue augmentation around dental implants with connective tissue graft (CTG) and xenogenic collagen matrix (XCM). 1-year randomized control trail. Annals of Anatomy. 2020;230:151484. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2020.151484

9. Thoma DS, Gasser TJW, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF. 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. Journal of clinical periodontology. 2020;47(5):630–9. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13271

10. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hilbe M, Hämmerle CHF, Hüsler J, Jung RE. 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. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2016;43(10):874–85. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12588

11. Orekhova LYu, Farkhshatova RR, Gerasimova LP, Karibova MF, Danilko KV, Khaibullina RR, et al. In vitro analysis of proliferative activity of cells on the collagen 3d matrix for regeneration of soft tissues of the oral cavity. Bashkortostan Medical Journal. 2019;14(83):35– 42 (In Russ.). Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42450062

12. Melezhechkina IA, Atrushkevich VG, Berchenko GN. Comparative morphological assessment of crosslinked and non-crosslinked xenograft biointegration quality. Parodontologiya. 2022;27:288–97 (In Russ). doi: 10.33925/1683-3759-2022-27-4-288-297

13. Adzhieva AB, Khabadze ZS, Yollybayev YaA, Hossain ShJ. Use of a volumetric-stable collagen matrix tocorrect soft tissue volume. Endodontics Today. 2020;18(4):65–8 (In Russ.). doi: 10.36377/1683-2981-2020-18-4-65-68

14. Caballé-Serrano J, Zhang S, Sculean A, Staehli A, Bosshardt DD. Tissue integration and degradation of a porous collagen-based scaffold used for soft tissue augmentation. Materials. 2020;13(10):1–14. doi: 10.3390/ma13102420

15. 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. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2005;16(6):639–44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01193.x

16. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a shortform oral health impact profile. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. 997;25(4):284–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x

17. Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Avila-Ortiz G, Urban IA, Giannobile WV, Wang HL. Peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification and its impact on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Periodontology. 2021;92(1):21–44. doi: 10.1002/JPER.19-0716

18. Cosyn J, Eeckhout C, Christiaens V, Eghbali A, Vervaeke S, Younes F, et al. A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the buccal aspect of single implants: 3-month results. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2021;48(12):1502–15. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13560

19. Cairo R, 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. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2017;44(7):769–76. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12750

20. Ashurko IP, Tarasenko SV, Esayan AV, Galyas AI. 3D volumetric analysis at implant sites after soft tissue augmentation. Medicinskij alfavit. 2022;7:79–84 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33667/2078-5631-2022-7-79-84

21. Tarasenko SV, Zagorskij SV. Clinical results of comparative analysis of modern methods of the constructive plastic of the gum dental implantation. Clinical Dentistry. 2019;2(90):46–9 (In Russ.). doi: 10.37988/1811-153X_2019_2_46

22. Vallecillo C, Toledano-Osorio M, Vallecillo-Rivas M, Toledano M, Rodriguez-Archilla A, Osorio R. Collagen matrix vs. autogenous connective tissue graft for soft tissue augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers. 2021;13(11):1810. doi: 10.3390/polym13111810