Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration

A N Zuercher; F J Strauss; P N Paqué; S P Bienz; R E Jung; D S Thoma

doi:10.1111/clr.14140

Randomized controlled pilot study comparing small buccal defects around dental implants treated with a subepithelial connective tissue graft or with guided bone regeneration

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Oct;34(10):1094-1105. doi: 10.1111/clr.14140. Epub 2023 Jul 23.

Authors

A N Zuercher¹, F J Strauss¹, P N Paqué¹, S P Bienz¹, R E Jung¹, D S Thoma¹

Affiliation

¹ Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

PMID: 37483129
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14140

Abstract

Aim: To compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) versus guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant dehiscence defects in terms of profilometric (primary outcome), clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods: Sixteen patients who presented with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤3 mm) following single implant placement were recruited. Following implant placement, buccal bone defect sites were randomly treated either with a SCTG or GBR. Six patients who lacked bone dehiscences after implant placement were assigned to a negative control. Transmucosal healing was applied in all patients. Patients were examined prior (T1) and after (T2) implant placement, at suture removal (T3), at implant impression (T5), at crown delivery (T6), and 12 (T7) months after crown delivery. Measurements included profilometric outcomes, marginal bone levels, buccal bone and soft tissue thickness, PROMs, and clinical parameters. All data were analyzed descriptively.

Results: The median changes in buccal contour as assessed by profilometric measures between T1 and T5 showed a decrease of 1.84 mm for the SCTG group and 1.06 mm for the GBR group. Between T2 and T7, the median change in the buccal contour amounted to 0.45 mm for SCTG and -0.94 mm (=loss) for GBR. Patients' pain perception tended to be higher in SCTG than in GBR. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters showed healthy oral tissues and no clinically relevant differences between groups.

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this pilot study, treating small peri-implant dehiscence defects with a SCTG might be a viable alternative to GBR. The use of a SCTG tended to result in more stable profilometric outcomes and comparable clinical outcomes to GBR. However, patient-reported outcome measures tended to favor GBR.

Keywords: autogenous connective tissue graft; buccal bone dehiscence; dental implant; guided bone regeneration; soft tissue augmentation.