About the Journal

Download [This article belongs to Volume - 63, Issue - 08]

Abstract : The usage of Connective Tissue Graft (CTG) with Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) is considered the golden standard for coverage of peri-implant mucosal recessions. As this procedure leaves a second surgical site for the patient and healing may be impaired, it is desired to lower patient morbidity and at the same time shorten the healing phase. Various soft tissue substitutes were evaluated in the past to replace autogenous tissue. In order to replace the harvesting of autogenous tissue, new porcine, porous, resorbable and volume stable collagen matrix were developed allowing for soft tissue volume augmentation. The aim of the present study is to compare the peri-implant soft-tissue recession coverage and esthetic outcomes of two different approaches: xenogeneic collagen matrix (Geistlich Fibro-Gide®) and subepithelial connective tissue graft using the coronal advancement flap for the treatment of soft tissue recession. This study is prospective randomized clinical trial to evaluate treatment of peri-implant soft-tissue recession using subepithelial connective tissue graft and coronal flap advancement compare to xenogeneic collagen matrix (Geistlich Fibro-Gide®) for augmentation soft tissue and recession coverage on implants. Split mouth design is considered, one of the side is control and the other side is case in the same patient. The Study contains 15 patients with bilateral soft tissue recession peri-implant ≥2mm in one implant at least in upper or lower jaw. Therefore 30 affected sites will be treated. The depth of recession and the thickness of Mucosa were evaluated at baseline (T0), and at 3 months, while the width of the mucosa evaluated at baseline (T0), 2weeks (T1), month(T2), 3 months(T3) Pain assessd using Visual Analuge Scale (VAS) with 3 points representing 0(No Pain), 50 (Moderate Pain), 100 (pain as bad as it could possible be/ Severe Pain). Postoperative pain using VAS scores were significantly higher in SCTG group then XCM group. There was Statistically significant difference in recession depth, Mucosa width and Thickness after 3 months. VAS scores for postoperative pain were significantly higher in SCTG group then XCM group. In terms of Surgical time (period from the first incision to the end of procedure), it was statically significant lower in the experimental group for about 15 minutes. The usage of XCM combined with Coronally Advance flap, is a reasonable alternative to CTG for coverage of peri implants mucosal recessions.