4.5 Article

Treatment of soft tissue recessions at titanium implants using a resorbable collagen matrix: a pilot study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 110-115

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12042

Keywords

animal study; collagen matrix; histomorphometry; soft tissue recession

Funding

  1. Osteology Foundation, Lucerne, Switzerland
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25463052] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesTo histologically assess the effectiveness of a porcine-derived collagen matrix (CM) and a subepithelial connective tissue graft (CTG) for the coverage of single mucosal recessions at osseointegrated dental implants. Materials and methodsChronic-type mucosal Miller Class I-like recessions (mean clinical defect height: 0.670.33-1.160.19mm) were established at the buccal aspect of titanium implants with platform switch in six beagle dogs. The defects were randomly allocated to either (1) coronally advanced flap surgery (CAF)+CM, (2) CAF+CTG or (3) CAF alone. At 12weeks, histomorphometrical measurements were made (e.g.) between the implant shoulder (IS) and the mucosal margin (PM) and IS and the outer contour of the adjacent soft tissue (mucosal thickness [MT]). ResultsAll treatment procedures investigated were associated with an almost complete soft tissue coverage of the defect area (i.e. coronal positioning of PM relative to IS). Mean IS-PM and MT values tended to be increased in both CAF+CM (1.04 +/- 0.74mm/0.71 +/- 0.55mm) and CAF+CTG (0.88 +/- 1.23mm/0.62 +/- 0.66mm) groups when compared with CAF (0.16 +/- 0.28mm/0.34 +/- 0.23mm) alone. These differences, however, did not reach statistical significance. ConclusionsWithin the limits of this pilot study, it was concluded that all treatment procedures investigated were effective in covering soft tissue recessions at titanium implants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available