4.6 Article

Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices: a volumetric analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 659-666

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01581.x

Keywords

collagen-based matrix; soft tissue augmentation; soft tissue volume; subepithelial connective tissue graft; volumetric measurement

Funding

  1. Swiss Confederation's innovation promotion agency (CTI)
  2. Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen Switzerland
  3. Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Objectives The aim was to test whether or not soft tissue augmentation with a newly developed collagen matrix (CM) leads to volume gain in chronic ridge defects similar to those obtained by an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). Material and Methods In six dogs, soft tissue volume augmentation was performed by randomly allocating three treatment modalities to chronic ridge defects (CM, SCTG, sham-operated control). Impressions were taken before augmentation (baseline), at 28, and 84 days. The obtained casts were optically scanned and the images were digitally analysed. A defined region of interest was measured in all sites and the volume differences between the time points were calculated. Results The mean volume differences per area between baseline and 28 days amounted to a gain of 1.6 mm (CM; SD +/- 0.9), 1.5 mm (SCTG; +/- 0.1), and a loss of 0.003 mm (control; +/- 0.3). At 84 days, the mean volume differences per area to baseline measured a gain of 1.4 mm (CM; +/- 1.1), 1.4 mm (SCTG; +/- 0.4), and a loss of 0.3 mm (control; +/- 0.3). The differences between CM and SCTG were statistically significant compared with control at 28 and 84 days (p < 0.001). Conclusion Within the limits of this animal study, the CM may serve as a replacement for autogenous connective tissue.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available