Literature DB >> 25720794

Long-term outcomes after vestibuloplasty with a porcine collagen matrix (Mucograft® ) versus the free gingival graft: a comparative prospective clinical trial.

Christian M Schmitt1, Tobias Moest2, Rainer Lutz2, Falk Wehrhan2, Friedrich W Neukam2, Karl Andreas Schlegel2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Porcine collagen matrices are proclaimed being a sufficient alternative to autologous free gingival grafts (FGG) in terms of augmenting the keratinized mucosa. The collagen matrix Mucograft® (CM) already showed a comparable clinical performance in the early healing phase, similar histological appearance, and even a more natural appearance of augmented regions. Predictability for long-term stability does not yet exist due to missing studies reporting of a follow-up >6 months.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 48 patients with atrophic edentulous or partially edentulous lower jaw situations that had undergone an implant treatment. In the context of implant exposure, a vestibuloplasty was either performed with two FGGs from the palate (n = 21 patients) or with the CM (n = 27 patients). Surgery time was recorded from the first incision to the last suture. Follow-up examinations were performed at the following time points: 10, 30, 90, and 180 days and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after surgery. The width of keratinized mucosa was measured at the buccal aspect of each implant, and augmented sites were evaluated in terms of their clinical appearances (texture and color).
RESULTS: The groups showed similar healing with increased peri-implant keratinized mucosa after surgery (FGG: 13.06 mm ± 2.26 mm and CM: 12.96 mm ± 2.86 mm). The maximum follow-up was 5 years (5 patients per group). After 180 days, the width of keratinized mucosa had decreased to 67.08 ± 13.85% in the FGG group and 58.88 ± 14.62% in the CM group with no statistically significant difference. The total loss of the width of keratinized mucosa after 5 years was significant between the FGG (40.65%) and the CM group (52.89%). The CM group had significantly shorter operation times than the FGG group. Augmented soft tissues had a comparable clinical appearance to adjacent native gingiva in the CM group. FGGs could still be defined after 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: The FGG and the CM are both suitable for the regeneration of the peri-implant keratinized mucosa with a sufficient long-term stability. With the CM, tissue harvesting procedures are invalid, surgery time can be reduced, and regenerated tissues have a more esthetic appearance.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mucograft®; dental implants; free gingival graft; keratinized mucosa; porcine collagen matrix; soft tissue augmentation; vestibuloplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25720794     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  26 in total

1.  Clinical and histologic evaluation of different approaches to gain keratinized tissue prior to implant placement in fully edentulous patients.

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

2.  Expansion of the peri-implant attached gingiva with a three-dimensional collagen matrix in head and neck cancer patients-results from a prospective clinical and histological study.

Authors:  Jonas Lorenz; Maximilian Blume; Mike Barbeck; Anna Teiler; C James Kirkpatrick; Robert A Sader; Shahram Ghanaati
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  Soft tissue augmentation around osseointegrated and uncovered dental implants: a systematic review.

Authors:  Renzo G Bassetti; Alexandra Stähli; Mario A Bassetti; Anton Sculean
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Volumetric and linear changes at dental implants following grafting with volume-stable three-dimensional collagen matrices or autogenous connective tissue grafts: 6-month data.

Authors:  Nadja Naenni; Stefan P Bienz; Goran I Benic; Ronald E Jung; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  A retrospective comparison of three modalities for vestibuloplasty in the posterior mandible: apically positioned flap only vs. free gingival graft vs. collagen matrix.

Authors:  Hyun-Chang Lim; Sang-Chun An; Dong-Woon Lee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 6.  Full-Thickness Oral Mucoperiosteal Defects: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Brittany N Allen; Qi Wang; Yassine Filali; Kristan S Worthington; Deborah S F Kacmarynski
Journal:  Tissue Eng Part B Rev       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 7.376

7.  Tissue integration and biodegradation of soft tissue substitutes with and without compression: an experimental study in the rat.

Authors:  Stefan P Bienz; Cedryck Vaquette; Alexis Ioannidis; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung; Sašo Ivanovski; Daniel S Thoma
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.606

Review 8.  Soft tissue augmentation procedures at second-stage surgery: a systematic review.

Authors:  Renzo G Bassetti; Alexandra Stähli; Mario A Bassetti; Anton Sculean
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.573

9.  Engaging a polylactide copolymer in oral tissue regeneration: first validation of Suprathel® for guided epithelial and osseous healing.

Authors:  Sergiu Vacaras; Grigore Baciut; Dan Gheban; Simion Bran; Horatiu Colosi; Septimiu Toader; Daiana Opris; Winfried Kretschmer; Avram Manea; Gabriel Armencea; Mihaela Baciut; Horia Opris; Ileana Mitre; Mihaela Hedesiu; Cristian Dinu
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr

10.  Bilayered, non-cross-linked collagen matrix for regeneration of facial defects after skin cancer removal: a new perspective for biomaterial-based tissue reconstruction.

Authors:  Shahram Ghanaati; Adorján Kovács; Mike Barbeck; Jonas Lorenz; Anna Teiler; Nader Sadeghi; Charles James Kirkpatrick; Robert Sader
Journal:  J Cell Commun Signal       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 5.782

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.