A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compares two methods, xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) and subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), for increasing soft tissue thickness at dental implant sites in a sample of 30 patients.
  • Results showed that SCTG led to a greater average increase in soft tissue thickness (1.55 mm) compared to XCM (1.18 mm), with SCTG also having a shorter operation time.
  • Overall, while SCTG outperformed XCM in tissue gain, XCM may still be a viable option for soft tissue augmentation in certain clinical situations.

Article Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) to increase soft tissue thickness at implant site.

Materials And Methods: The study was a randomized, parallel-group controlled investigation. Thirty patients underwent buccal soft tissue thickness augmentation at the stage of implant placement by two different methods: SCTG (control group) and XCM (test group). Primary outcome was the amount of buccal soft tissue thickness gain, 3 months after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the operation time, the amount of keratinized mucosa (KM), pain syndrome (PS), and patients' quality of life (QL). Histologic evaluation was also performed.

Results: The amount of soft tissue thickness gain was 1.55±0.11 mm in SCTG group, and 1.18±0.11mm in XCM group. The difference between the SCTG and XCM was -0.366 (-0.66 to -0.07; p=0.016). Operation time with XCM was 8.4 (3.737 to 13.06) min shorter than that with the SCTG (p=0.001). KT, PS, and QL for both groups were not statistically significantly different at any time point (p>0.05). At histological examination, the general picture in both groups was similar. No significant differences between the studied groups in most indices, except for the average and maximum formation thickness, cellularity of the basal, mitotic activity and also maximum length of rete ridges.

Conclusion: Within limitations, this study demonstrates that the use of SCTG provides a statistically significant superior soft tissue thickness gain than XCM for soft tissue augmentation procedures around implants.

Clinical Relevance: XCM can be used as the method of choice for increasing the thickness of soft tissues.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04680-xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

soft tissue
28
tissue thickness
20
thickness gain
12
connective tissue
8
tissue graft
8
xenogeneic collagen
8
collagen matrix
8
soft
8
tissue
8
tissue augmentation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!