Literature DB >> 29248711

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.

Monika Puzio1, Artur Błaszczyszyn2, Jakub Hadzik3, Marzena Dominiak2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A comparative, ultrasound evaluation of the thickness of keratinized mucosa (TKT) around implants one year after gingival augmentation (GA) by means of a connective tissue graft (CTG) and the xenogeneic collagen matrix (CMX).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 75 bone level tapered implants (Conelog® Camlog) were inserted in 57 patients in the aesthetic area of both jaws. The patients were divided into 3 groups: control group I- without GA; group II- GA 3 months before implantation, and group III- GA 3 months after implantation. Groups II and III were divided into two subgroups depends on type of material used for GA: (a) CMX (Mucograft®, Geistlich Pharma AG) and (b) CTG. The patients underwent a clinical and ultrasound examination before, then after 3 and 12 months following GA respectively to evaluate TKT at two points using ultrasound equipment (Pirop®, Echoson). Point 1 was considered to be in the middle of the line connecting the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) to the adjacent teeth, and point 2 on the mucogingival junction (MGJ).
RESULTS: Three months after GA, the highest increase in gingival thickness was noted in group IIIb (point 1 - 0.95mm, 2 - 1.01mm). However, 12 months after GA the highest gingival thickness was observed in group IIb (point 1 - 1.76mm, 2 - 1.36m) and next IIIb (point 1 - 1.52mm, 2 - 1.15mm).
CONCLUSIONS: Both CTG and Geistlich Mucograft® increased TKT, but higher values were noted using CTG augmentation before implantation. An ultrasonic device can be used as a non-invasive, reliable, and reproducible method for evaluating TKT.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Connective tissue graft; Mucograft(®); Thickness keratinized gingiva; Ultrasound measurements

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29248711     DOI: 10.1016/j.aanat.2017.11.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Anat        ISSN: 0940-9602            Impact factor:   2.698


  7 in total

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

Authors:  Igor Ashurko; Svetlana Tarasenko; Aleksandr Esayan; Alexandr Kurkov; Karen Mikaelyan; Maxim Balyasin; Anna Galyas; Julia Kustova; Silvio Taschieri; Stefano Corbella
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-08-27       Impact factor: 3.606

Review 2.  Use of Xenogenic Collagen Matrices in Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Volume Augmentation: A Critical Review on the Current Evidence and New Technique Presentation.

Authors:  Carlo De Annuntiis; Luca Testarelli; Renzo Guarnieri
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 3.748

3.  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.

Authors:  Célien Eeckhout; Eline Bouckaert; Dagmar Verleyen; Thomas De Bruyckere; Jan Cosyn
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 4.241

4.  How Thick Is the Oral Mucosa around Implants after Augmentation with Different Materials: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Substitute Matrices in Comparison to Connective Tissue Grafts.

Authors:  Martin Lissek; Martin Boeker; Arndt Happe
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  The influence of gingival phenotype on the morphology of the maxillary central papilla.

Authors:  Šimon Belák; Radovan Žižka; Martin Starosta; Jana Zapletalová; Jiří Šedý; Michal Štefanatný
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Comparison of the Effectiveness of the Ultrasonic Method and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Combined with Intraoral Scanning and Prosthetic-Driven Implant Planning Method in Determining the Gingival Phenotype in the Healthy Periodontium.

Authors:  Magdalena Bednarz-Tumidajewicz; Aneta Furtak; Aneta Zakrzewska; Małgorzata Rąpała; Karolina Gerreth; Tomasz Gedrange; Wojciech Bednarz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Effect of peri-implant mucosal thickness on esthetic outcomes and the efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures: Consensus report of group 2 of the SEPA/DGI/OF workshop.

Authors:  Ronald E Jung; Kathrin Becker; Stefan P Bienz; Christer Dahlin; Nikos Donos; Christian Hammächer; Gerhard Iglhaut; Antonio Liñares; Alberto Ortiz-Vigón; Nerea Sanchez; Ignacio Sanz-Sánchez; Daniel S Thoma; Cristina Valles; Dietmar Weng; José Nart
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2022-06       Impact factor: 5.021

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.