Jimmy Vellis1, Ahmad Kutkut2, Mohanad Al-Sabbagh3. 1. Former resident, Division of Periodontology, Department of Oral Health Practice, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 2. Associate Professor, Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Oral Health Practice, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 3. Professor, Division of Periodontology, Department of Oral Health Practice, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of collagen matrix (CM) grafts as an alternative to free gingival grafts (FGGs) in increasing the zone of keratinized tissue (KT) around dental implants. METHODS: Thirty subjects with 2 contralateral implants were recruited. The test group (n = 30) received CM grafts. The control group (n = 30) received FGGs. Clinical variables were plaque index, gingival index, probing depths, bleeding on probing (BOP), and mucosal recession (MR). Subjects were followed at 1 and 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: FGGs resulted in mean gains (3.73 ± 1.93 mm) in KT for 28 of 30 implants (93% success rate). CM grafts resulted in mean gains (3.23 ± 1.52 mm) in KT for 29 of the 30 implants (97% success rate). Mean change in pocket depth around implants grafted with FGG was -0.24 ± 1.02 mm and with CM was -0.25 ± 0.80 mm. Mean change in BOP around implants grafted with FGG was 0.03 ± 0.49 and with CM was 0.13 ± 0.57. CONCLUSION: CM grafts achieved results comparable to those of FGGs in augmented tissue. They do not negatively affect probing depths, MR, or bleeding on probing.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of collagen matrix (CM) grafts as an alternative to free gingival grafts (FGGs) in increasing the zone of keratinized tissue (KT) around dental implants. METHODS: Thirty subjects with 2 contralateral implants were recruited. The test group (n = 30) received CM grafts. The control group (n = 30) received FGGs. Clinical variables were plaque index, gingival index, probing depths, bleeding on probing (BOP), and mucosal recession (MR). Subjects were followed at 1 and 2 weeks and 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: FGGs resulted in mean gains (3.73 ± 1.93 mm) in KT for 28 of 30 implants (93% success rate). CM grafts resulted in mean gains (3.23 ± 1.52 mm) in KT for 29 of the 30 implants (97% success rate). Mean change in pocket depth around implants grafted with FGG was -0.24 ± 1.02 mm and with CM was -0.25 ± 0.80 mm. Mean change in BOP around implants grafted with FGG was 0.03 ± 0.49 and with CM was 0.13 ± 0.57. CONCLUSION: CM grafts achieved results comparable to those of FGGs in augmented tissue. They do not negatively affect probing depths, MR, or bleeding on probing.
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