Effect of Connective Tissue Graft as an Adjunct to Guided Bone Regeneration in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Dual-Center Randomized Controlled Trial
Lucrezia Paterno Holtzman, Iva Milinkovic, Marija Vuckovic, Chiara Malpassi, Marla Cuppini, Alex Solderer, Zoran Aleksic, Luca Cordaro
{"title":"Effect of Connective Tissue Graft as an Adjunct to Guided Bone Regeneration in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Dual-Center Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Lucrezia Paterno Holtzman, Iva Milinkovic, Marija Vuckovic, Chiara Malpassi, Marla Cuppini, Alex Solderer, Zoran Aleksic, Luca Cordaro","doi":"10.1111/clr.70093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate whether adding a connective tissue graft (CTG) to guided bone regeneration (GBR) improves clinical and radiographic outcomes in surgical peri-implantitis treatment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-two patients with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to receive GBR and CTG (test group, TG) or GBR alone (control group, CG). Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL), while secondary outcomes included pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), mucosal thickness (MT), recession (REC), suppuration (SUP), marginal bone levels (MBL), bone defect morphology, and disease resolution (DR).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>At 12 months, CAL gain was significantly higher in TG compared with CG (3.21 ± 1.57 mm vs. 1.65 ± 1.28 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.022), and TG achieved significantly greater increase in KMW (2.25 ± 2.89 mm vs. 0.26 ± 1.49 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.010). Both groups showed significant PPD reduction, with a greater, though not statistically significant, improvement comparing TG with CG (3.25 ± 1.59 mm vs. 1.97 ± 1.23 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.052). Additionally, MBL improved significantly in both groups (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with higher gains in TG (<i>p</i> < 0.001). However, DR was comparable between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>GBR effectively improves peri-implant parameters after 1 year. Adding a CTG enhances CAL and KMW gains and may promote more favorable bone levels, although the impact on DR remains inconclusive. Long-term studies are warranted to confirm these findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04323540</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"37 4","pages":"478-495"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.70093","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.70093","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate whether adding a connective tissue graft (CTG) to guided bone regeneration (GBR) improves clinical and radiographic outcomes in surgical peri-implantitis treatment.
Materials and Methods
Thirty-two patients with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to receive GBR and CTG (test group, TG) or GBR alone (control group, CG). Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL), while secondary outcomes included pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), mucosal thickness (MT), recession (REC), suppuration (SUP), marginal bone levels (MBL), bone defect morphology, and disease resolution (DR).
Results
At 12 months, CAL gain was significantly higher in TG compared with CG (3.21 ± 1.57 mm vs. 1.65 ± 1.28 mm; p = 0.022), and TG achieved significantly greater increase in KMW (2.25 ± 2.89 mm vs. 0.26 ± 1.49 mm; p = 0.010). Both groups showed significant PPD reduction, with a greater, though not statistically significant, improvement comparing TG with CG (3.25 ± 1.59 mm vs. 1.97 ± 1.23 mm; p = 0.052). Additionally, MBL improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.001), with higher gains in TG (p < 0.001). However, DR was comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions
GBR effectively improves peri-implant parameters after 1 year. Adding a CTG enhances CAL and KMW gains and may promote more favorable bone levels, although the impact on DR remains inconclusive. Long-term studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
目的评价在引导骨再生(GBR)中加入结缔组织移植物(CTG)是否能改善手术治疗种植体周围炎的临床和影像学结果。材料与方法32例种植体周围炎患者随机分为GBR联合CTG组(试验组,TG)和GBR组(对照组,CG)。在基线、6个月和12个月记录临床和影像学参数。主要结果是临床附着水平(CAL)的变化,次要结果包括口袋探测深度(PPD)、探测出血(BoP)、斑块指数(PI)、角化粘膜宽度(KMW)、粘膜厚度(MT)、萎缩(REC)、化脓(SUP)、边缘骨水平(MBL)、骨缺损形态和疾病缓解(DR)。结果12个月后,TG组CAL增益显著高于CG组(3.21±1.57 mm vs. 1.65±1.28 mm, p = 0.022), TG组KMW组CAL增益显著高于CG组(2.25±2.89 mm vs. 0.26±1.49 mm, p = 0.010)。两组均显示PPD显著降低,TG与CG相比改善更大(3.25±1.59 mm vs. 1.97±1.23 mm; p = 0.052),但无统计学意义。此外,两组MBL均有显著改善(p < 0.001), TG的改善更高(p < 0.001)。然而,两组之间的DR具有可比性。结论sgbr术后1年可有效改善种植体周围参数。添加CTG可提高CAL和KMW的增加,并可能促进更有利的骨水平,尽管对DR的影响尚不确定。有必要进行长期研究来证实这些发现。临床试验注册。gov NCT04323540。
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.