4.3 Article

Is there any biomaterial substitute for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification? A network meta-analysis of the appraisal literature

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.07.005

关键词

phenotype; biomaterials; dental implant; autografting; peri-implantitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This network meta-analysis compared the clinical effects of different biomaterials for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification. The results showed that autologous tissue grafts had the best effects in increasing the width and thickness of keratinized mucosa.
Evidence shows that an increased width and thickness of the keratinized mucosa favours peri-implant health. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare the clinical effects of alternative biomaterials for peri-implant soft tissue phenotype modification (PSPM) in patients with dental implants when compared to autologous tissue grafts. An electronic search without language or date limitations was performed in four databases and the grey literature for articles published until November 2020. The eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical outcomes of biomaterials for PSPM. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was conducted for each parameter to assess and compare the outcomes between the different treatment arms for the primary and secondary outcomes. A total of 11 RCTs were included in this review. The free gingival graft (FGG) showed the best clinical effect for increasing keratinized mucosa width (KMW). When compared in a network, the FGG demonstrated the best treatment ranking of probability results, followed by connective tissue graft (CTG), acellular dermal matrix (ADM), and xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). For the parameters 'mucosa thickness' and 'participant satisfaction with aesthetics', the results were CTG > ADM > XCM and XCM > ADM > CTG, respectively. Autogenous tissue grafts (FGG/CTG) demonstrate the best results in increasing KMW and mucosa thickness when compared to the other biomaterials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据