Soft tissue augmentation around osseointegrated and uncovered dental implants: a systematic review
- 21 November 2016
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Clinical Oral Investigations
- Vol. 21 (1), 53-70
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2007-9
Abstract
The aim was to compile the current knowledge about the efficacy of different soft tissue correction methods around osseointegrated, already uncovered and/or loaded (OU/L) implants with insufficient soft tissue conditions. Procedures to increase peri-implant keratinized mucosa (KM) width and/or soft tissue volume were considered. Screening of two databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (OVID), and manual search of articles were performed. Human studies reporting on soft tissue augmentation/correction methods around OU/L implants up to June 30, 2016, were considered. Quality assessment of selected full-text articles to weight risk of bias was performed using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool. Overall, four randomized controlled trials (risk of bias = high/low) and five prospective studies (risk of bias = high) were included. Depending on the surgical techniques and graft materials, the enlargement of keratinized tissue (KT) ranged between 1.15 ± 0.81 and 2.57 ± 0.50 mm. The apically positioned partial thickness flap (APPTF), in combination with a free gingival graft (FGG), a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), or a xenogeneic graft material (XCM) were most effective. A coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with SCTG in three, combined with allogenic graft materials (AMDA) in one, and a split thickness flap (STF) combined with SCTG in another study showed mean soft tissue recession coverage rates from 28 to 96.3 %. STF combined with XCM failed to improve peri-implant soft tissue coverage. The three APPTF-techniques combined with FGG, SCTG, or XCM achieved comparable enlargements of peri-implant KT. Further, both STF and CAF, both in combination with SCTG, are equivalent regarding recession coverage rates. STF + XCM and CAF + AMDA did not reach significant coverage. In case of soft tissue deficiency around OU/L dental implants, the selection of both an appropriate surgical technique and a suitable soft tissue graft material is of utmost clinical relevance.Keywords
This publication has 94 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is there a need for keratinized mucosa around implants to maintain health and tissue stability?Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- A Novel Surgical Procedure for Coronally Repositioning of the Buccal Implant Mucosa Using Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Case ReportThe Journal of Periodontology, 2011
- Free Gingival Grafts to Increase Keratinized Tissue: A Retrospective Long‐Term Evaluation (10 to 25 years) of OutcomesThe Journal of Periodontology, 2008
- Significance of Keratinized Mucosa in Maintenance of Dental Implants With Different SurfacesThe Journal of Periodontology, 2006
- THE USE OF FREE GINGIVAL GRAFTS IN THE TREATMENT OF PERI-IMPLANT SOFT TISSUE COMPLICATIONSImplant Dentistry, 1993
- Periodontal tissues and their counterparts around endosseous implantsClinical Oral Implants Research, 1991
- Regeneration of gingiva following surgical excisionJournal of Clinical Periodontology, 1983
- The Relationship Between the Width of Keratinized Gingiva and Gingival HealthThe Journal of Periodontology, 1972
- Conservation of tissue specifically after heterotopic transplantation of gingiva and alveolar mucosaJournal of Periodontal Research, 1971