Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration


Zuercher, A N; Strauss, F J; Paqué, P N; Bienz, S P; Jung, R E; Thoma, D S (2023). Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 34(10):1094-1105.

Abstract

AIM

To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Abstract

AIM

To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 07 Feb 2024
3 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Oral Surgery
Language:English
Date:October 2023
Deposited On:07 Feb 2024 07:38
Last Modified:30 Jun 2024 01:39
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7161
OA Status:Hybrid
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14140
Related URLs: (Publisher)
PubMed ID:37483129
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)