AIM: To review the biological processes of wound healing following periodontal and periimplant plastic surgery when different technologies are used in a) the coverage of root and implant dehiscences, b) the augmentation of keratinized tissue (KT) and c) the augmentation of soft tissue volume. MATERIALS & METHODS: An electronic search from The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed) was performed: English articles with research focus in oral soft tissue regeneration, providing histological outcomes, either from animal experimental studies or human biopsy material were included. RESULTS: Barrier membranes, enamel matrix derivatives, growth factors, allogeneic and xenogeneic soft tissue substitutes have been used in soft tissue regeneration demonstrating different degrees of regeneration. In root coverage, these technologies were able to improve new attachment, although none has shown complete regeneration. In KT augmentation, tissue-engineered allogenic products and xenogeneic collagen matrixes demonstrated integration within the host connective tissue and promotion of keratinization. In soft tissue augmentation and peri-implant plastic surgery there are no histological data currently available. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue substitutes, growth differentiation factors demonstrated promising histological results in terms of soft tissue regeneration and keratinization, whereas there is a need for further studies to prove their added value in soft tissue augmentation.
AIM: To review the biological processes of wound healing following periodontal and periimplant plastic surgery when different technologies are used in a) the coverage of root and implant dehiscences, b) the augmentation of keratinized tissue (KT) and c) the augmentation of soft tissue volume. MATERIALS & METHODS: An electronic search from The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed) was performed: English articles with research focus in oral soft tissue regeneration, providing histological outcomes, either from animal experimental studies or human biopsy material were included. RESULTS: Barrier membranes, enamel matrix derivatives, growth factors, allogeneic and xenogeneic soft tissue substitutes have been used in soft tissue regeneration demonstrating different degrees of regeneration. In root coverage, these technologies were able to improve new attachment, although none has shown complete regeneration. In KT augmentation, tissue-engineered allogenic products and xenogeneic collagen matrixes demonstrated integration within the host connective tissue and promotion of keratinization. In soft tissue augmentation and peri-implant plastic surgery there are no histological data currently available. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue substitutes, growth differentiation factors demonstrated promising histological results in terms of soft tissue regeneration and keratinization, whereas there is a need for further studies to prove their added value in soft tissue augmentation.
Authors: Daniel S Thoma; AbdulMonem Alshihri; Alain Fontolliet; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Goran I Benic Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Ana B Castro; Nastaran Meschi; Andy Temmerman; Nelson Pinto; Paul Lambrechts; Wim Teughels; Marc Quirynen Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2017-01-10 Impact factor: 8.728