Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: a randomized-controlled clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) to increase soft tissue thickness at implant site.

Materials and methods

The study was a randomized, parallel-group controlled investigation. Thirty patients underwent buccal soft tissue thickness augmentation at the stage of implant placement by two different methods: SCTG (control group) and XCM (test group). Primary outcome was the amount of buccal soft tissue thickness gain, 3 months after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the operation time, the amount of keratinized mucosa (KM), pain syndrome (PS), and patients’ quality of life (QL). Histologic evaluation was also performed.

Results

The amount of soft tissue thickness gain was 1.55±0.11 mm in SCTG group, and 1.18±0.11mm in XCM group. The difference between the SCTG and XCM was −0.366 (−0.66 to −0.07; p=0.016). Operation time with XCM was 8.4 (3.737 to 13.06) min shorter than that with the SCTG (p=0.001). KT, PS, and QL for both groups were not statistically significantly different at any time point (p>0.05). At histological examination, the general picture in both groups was similar. No significant differences between the studied groups in most indices, except for the average and maximum formation thickness, cellularity of the basal, mitotic activity and also maximum length of rete ridges.

Conclusion

Within limitations, this study demonstrates that the use of SCTG provides a statistically significant superior soft tissue thickness gain than XCM for soft tissue augmentation procedures around implants.

Clinical relevance

XCM can be used as the method of choice for increasing the thickness of soft tissues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tarasenko S, Ashurko I, Taschieri S, Repina S, Esaya NA, Corbella S (2020) Comparative analysis of methods to increase the amount of keratinized mucosa before stage-two surgery: a randomized controlled study. Quintessence Int 51(5):374–387. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a44216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Avila-Ortiz G, Gonzalez-Martin O, Couso-Queiruga E, Wang HL (2020) The peri-implant phenotype. J Periodontol 91(3):283–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.19-0566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F (1981) The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 9(1):15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0503(81)80007-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Warrer K, Buser D, Lang NP, Karring T (1995) Plaque-induced peri-implantitis in the presence or absence of keratinized mucosa. An experimental study in monkeys. Clin Oral Implants Res 6(3):131–138. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060301.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Strub JR, Gaberthüel TW, Grunder U (1991) The role of attached gingiva in the health of peri-implant tissue in dogs. 1. Clinical findings. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 11(4):317–333

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schrott AR, Jimenez M, Hwang JW, Fiorellini J, Weber HP (2009) Five-year evaluation of the influence of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant soft-tissue health and stability around implants supporting full-arch mandibular fixed prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 20(10):1170–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01795.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zigdon H, Machtei EE (2008) The dimensions of keratinized mucosa around implants affect clinical and immunological parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 19(4):387–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01492.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chung DM, Oh TJ, Shotwell J, Misch CE, Wang HL (2006) Significance of keratinized mucosa in maintenance of dental implants with different surfaces. J Periodontol 77(8):1410–1420. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roccuzzo M, De Angelis N, Bonino L, Aglietta M (2010) Ten-year results of a three-arm prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: Implant loss and radiographic bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res 21(5):490–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01886.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roccuzzo M, Grasso G, Dalmasso P (2016) Keratinized mucosa around implants in partially edentulous posterior mandible: 10-year results of a prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(4):491–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yeung SC (2008) Biological basis for soft tissue management in implant dentistry. Aust Dent J. 53(Suppl 1):S39–S42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00040.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thoma DS, Naenni N, Figuero E, Hämmerle C, Schwarz F, Jung RE, Sanz-Sánchez I (2018) Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(Suppl 15):32–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berglundh T, Lindhe J (1996) Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 23(10):971–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00520.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Longoni S, Tinto M, Pacifico C, Sartori M, Andreano A (2019) Effect of peri-implant keratinized tissue width on tissue health and stability: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34(6):1307–1317. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Monje A, Blasi G (2019) Significance of keratinized mucosa/gingiva on peri-implant and adjacent periodontal conditions in erratic maintenance compliers. J Periodontol 90(5):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.18-0471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lorenzo R, García V, Orsini M, Martin C, Sanz M (2012) Clinical efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix in augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants: a randomized controlled prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(3):316–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02260.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sanz M, Lorenzo R, Aranda JJ, Martin C, Orsini M (2009) Clinical evaluation of a new collagen matrix (Mucograft® prototype) to enhance the width of keratinized tissue in patients with fixed prosthetic restorations: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 36(10):868–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01460.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jung RE, Sailer I, Hämmerle CH, Attin T, Schmidlin P (2007) In vitro color changes of soft tissues caused by restorative materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 27(3):251–257

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Linkevicius T, Linkevicius R, Alkimavicius J, Linkeviciene L, Andrijauskas P, Puisys A (2018) Influence of titanium base, lithium disilicate restoration and vertical soft tissue thickness on bone stability around triangular-shaped implants: a prospective clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(7):716–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thoma DS, Gil A, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE (2000) Management and prevention of soft tissue complications in implant dentistry. Periodontol 88(1):116–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwarz F, Ramanauskaite A (2022) It is all about peri-implant tissue health. Periodontol 2000 88(1):9–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Frost NA, Mealey BL, Jones AA, Huynh-Ba G (2015) Periodontal biotype: gingival thickness as it relates to probe visibility and buccal plate thickness. J Periodontol. 86(10):1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2015.140394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Eekeren P, van Elsas P, Tahmaseb A, Wismeijer D (2017) The influence of initial mucosal thickness on crestal bone change in similar macrogeometrical implants: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(2):214–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A (2009) The influence of soft tissue thickness on crestal bone changes around implants: a 1-year prospective controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24(4):712–719. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19885413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, Puisys A (2010) Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: a 1-year pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(9):2272–2277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.08.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Suárez-López Del Amo F, Lin GH, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL (2016) Influence of soft tissue thickness on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 87(6):690–699. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.150571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Giannobile WV, Jung RE, Schwarz F, Groups of the 2nd Osteology Foundation Consensus Meeting (2018) Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 1-Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on the maintenance of peri-implant soft tissue health. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(Suppl 15):7–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baldi N, Buti J, Mensi M, Alfonsi F, Cinquini C, Tonelli P, Barone A (2020) Xenogeneic dermal matrix versus autologous connective tissue graft versus no graft at abutment connection for improving aesthetics: 6 month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Clin Trials Dent 2(2):49–62. https://doi.org/10.36130/ctd.03.2020.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cairo F, Barbato L, Tonelli P, Batalocco G, Pagavino G, Nieri M (2017) Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for buccal soft tissue augmentation at implant site. A randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 44(7):769–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schmitt CM, Brückbauer P, Schlegel KA, Buchbender M, Adler W, Matta RE (2021) Volumetric soft tissue alterations in the early healing phase after peri- implant soft tissue contour augmentation with a porcine collagen matrix versus the autologous connective tissue graft: a controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 48(1):145–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roccuzzo M, Dalmasso P, Pittoni D, Roccuzzo A (2019) Treatment of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around single implant: 5-year results from a prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 23(4):1977–1983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2634-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sanz-Martín I, Rojo E, Maldonado E, Stroppa G, Nart J, Sanz M (2019) Structural and histological differences between connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palatal mucosa or from the tuberosity area. Clin Oral Investig 23(2):957–964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2516-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gargallo-Albiol J, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL (2019) Efficacy of xenogeneic collagen matrix to augment peri-implant soft tissue thickness compared with autogenous connective tissue graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34(5):1059–1069. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7497

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Thoma DS, Gasser T, Jung RE, Hämmerle C (2020) 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. J Clin Periodontol 47(5):630–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. De Angelis P, De Angelis S, Passarelli PC, Liguori MG, Pompa G, Papi P, Manicone PF, D’Addona A (2021) Clinical comparison of a xenogeneic collagen matrix versus subepithelial autogenous connective tissue graft for augmentation of soft tissue around implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50(7):956–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2020.11.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sasagawa A, Igarashi K, Ueda K, Hiroyasu K, Watanabe F (2022) Peri-implant tissue augmentation by volume-stable collagen matrix transplantation: a study of dog mandibles. Odontology 10(1):81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-021-00639-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huber S, Zeltner M, Hämmerle C, Jung RE, Thoma DS (2018) Non-interventional 1-year follow-up study of peri-implant soft tissues following previous soft tissue augmentation and crown insertion in single-tooth gaps. J Clin Periodontol 45(4):504–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zeltner M, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Hüsler J, Thoma DS (2017) Randomized controlled clinical study comparing a volume-stable collagen matrix to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: linear volumetric soft tissue changes up to 3 months. J Clin Periodontol 44(4):446–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thoma DS, Zeltner M, Hilbe M, Hämmerle CH, Hüsler 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(10):874–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wiesner G, Esposito M, Worthington H, Schlee M (2010) Connective tissue grafts for thickening peri-implant tissues at implant placement. One-year results from an explanatory split-mouth randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur. J Oral Implantol. 3(1):27–35

    Google Scholar 

  42. General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199241323.003.0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rojo E, Stroppa G, Sanz-Martin I, Gonzalez-Martín O, Alemany AS, Nart J (2018) Soft tissue volume gain around dental implants using autogenous subepithelial connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palate or tuberosity area. A randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 45(4):495–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gaston-Johansson F, Albert M, Fagan E, Zimmerman L (1990) Similarities in pain descriptions of four different ethnic-culture groups. J Pain Symptom Manage 5(2):94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-3924(05)80022-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Puisys A, Linkevicius T (2015) The influence of mucosal tissue thickening on crestal bone stability around bone-level implants. A prospective controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(2):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Froum SJ, Khouly I, Tarnow DP, Froum S, Rosenberg E, Corby P, Kye W, Elian N, Schoor R, Cho SC (2015) The use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix at the time of implant placement to increase the volume of buccal soft tissue. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent 35(2):179–189. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.2226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Naenni N, Walter P, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE, Thoma DS (2021) Augmentation of soft tissue volume at pontic sites: a comparison between a cross-linked and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix. Clin Oral Investig 25(3):1535–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03461-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Verardi S, Orsini M, Lombardi T, Ausenda F, Testori T, Pulici A, Oreglia F, Valente NA, Stacchi C (2020) Comparison between two different techniques for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: porcine dermal matrix graft versus tenting screw. J Periodontol. 91(8):1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.19-0447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schallhorn R, McClain P, Charles A, Clem D, Newman M (2015) Evaluation of a porcine collagen matrix used to augment keratinized tissue and increase soft tissue thickness around existing dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restor Dent. 35(1):99–103. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cosyn J, Eeckhout C, Younes F, Christiaens V, Eghbali A, Vervaeke S, Younes F, De Bruyckere T (2021) 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. J Clin Periodontol. 48(12):1502–1515. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13560

  51. Eeckhout C, Bouckaert E, Verleyen D, De Bruyckere T, Cosyn J (2020) A 3-year prospective study on a porcine-derived acellular collagen matrix to re-establish convexity at the buccal aspect of single implants in the molar area: a volumetric analysis. J Clin Med. 9(5):1568. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051568

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Puzio M, Błaszczyszyn A, Hadzik J, Dominiak M (2018) Ultrasound assessment of soft tissue augmentation around implants in the aesthetic zone using a connective tissue graft and xenogeneic collagen matrix – 1-year randomised follow-up. Ann Anat. 217:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2017.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Puisys A, Auzbikaviciute V, Vindasiute-Narbute E, Zukauskas S, Razukevicus D, Dard MM (2021) Full versus partial thickness flap to determine differentiation and over keratinization of non-keratinized mucosa. A 3-year split mouth randomized pilot study. Clin Exp Dent Res 7(6):1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.468

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hélio M, Daiane P, Elizabeth M, Marcelo N, Ana B, Julio J (2019) Peri-implant soft tissue augmentation with palate subepitelial connective tissue graft compared to porcine collagen matrix: A randomized controlled clinical study and histomorphometric analysis. 319. Int J Appl Dent Sci 5(3):319–325

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schmitt CM, Schlegel KA, Gammel L, Moest T (2019) Gingiva thickening with a porcine collagen matrix in a preclinical dog model: histological outcomes. J Clin Periodontol 46(12):1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Surgery of the Institute of Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 11 Mozhaisky Val Street, Moscow, 119048, Russian Federation

    Igor Ashurko, Svetlana Tarasenko, Aleksandr Esayan, Alexandr Kurkov, Karen Mikaelyan, Anna Galyas, Julia Kustova, Silvio Taschieri & Stefano Corbella

  2. Peoples Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Maxim Balyasin

  3. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy

    Silvio Taschieri & Stefano Corbella

  4. Department of Biomedica, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Silvio Taschieri & Stefano Corbella

Authors
  1. Igor Ashurko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svetlana Tarasenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aleksandr Esayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandr Kurkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Mikaelyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maxim Balyasin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anna Galyas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Julia Kustova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Silvio Taschieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Stefano Corbella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Igor Ashurko: conceptualization; methodology; data curation; investigation; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.

Svetlana Tarasenko: data curation; project administration; supervision.

Aleksandr Esayan: investigation.

Alexandr Kurkov: investigation; visualization; writing—original draft.

Karen Mikaelyan: investigation.

Maxim Balyasin: formal analysis; visualization.

Anna Galyas: writing—review and editing.

Julia Kustova: writing—review and editing.

Silvio Taschieri: data curation; project administration; supervision; writing—review and editing.

Stefano Corbella: data curation; project administration; supervision; writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Ashurko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashurko, I., Tarasenko, S., Esayan, A. et al. Connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: a randomized-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 26, 7191–7208 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04680-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04680-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation