Francesco Ferrarotti, Giacomo Baima, Giulia Mohammadi, Clelia Carboncini, Federica Romano, Mario Aimetti
{"title":"体积稳定的胶原基质或结缔组织移植物在口腔小骨裂处种植体周围软组织增加：一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Francesco Ferrarotti, Giacomo Baima, Giulia Mohammadi, Clelia Carboncini, Federica Romano, Mario Aimetti","doi":"10.1111/clr.14430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This randomized clinical study compared the profilometric measurements of the buccal tissue volume at sites augmented using a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) simultaneously to implant placement in the presence of small buccal bone dehiscence (SBBD ≤ 3 mm).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-four patients with SBBD were treated with soft tissue augmentation (STA) simultaneous to implant placement using VCMX or SCTG. Clinical measurements and 3D intraoral scans were collected prior to STA (BL), at 1, 3 months, and 1 year after prosthetic loading. Digital files were superimposed to compare profilometric volume on the buccal profile (primary outcome); peri-implant health, radiographic bone levels, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also assessed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Both treatments achieved a significant STA at 3 months, with a slight decrease observed from 1 month. At 3 months, the mean increase was 1.07 mm (SD 0.22) for VCMX and 1.22 mm (SD 0.44) for the CTG group (<i>p</i> = 0.156). PROMs revealed a difference in the perception of the bleeding at day 1, pain at 2 and 3 days, and swelling at 3 days favoring VCMX (<i>p</i> < 0.05). At 1 year, no intergroup difference in probing pocket depth, bleeding, and recession was detected, but CTG provided higher stability than VCMX in terms of profilometric measurements (0.21 mm [SD 0.32] vs. −0.05 mm [SD 0.36], respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.014) and radiographic bone levels (0.09 mm [SD 0.65] vs. −0.34 mm [SD 0.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.038).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>For implant placement at posterior sites with small buccal bone dehiscences, CTG and VCMX resulted in an initially comparable volume augmentation and clinical parameters, with VCMX leading to better PROMs. At 1 year, CTG maintained slightly higher profilometric stability and bone levels.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05466006 (https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05466006)</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"36 7","pages":"846-858"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14430","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Increase at Small Buccal Bone Dehiscences With Either Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Ferrarotti, Giacomo Baima, Giulia Mohammadi, Clelia Carboncini, Federica Romano, Mario Aimetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.14430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This randomized clinical study compared the profilometric measurements of the buccal tissue volume at sites augmented using a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) simultaneously to implant placement in the presence of small buccal bone dehiscence (SBBD ≤ 3 mm).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Forty-four patients with SBBD were treated with soft tissue augmentation (STA) simultaneous to implant placement using VCMX or SCTG. Clinical measurements and 3D intraoral scans were collected prior to STA (BL), at 1, 3 months, and 1 year after prosthetic loading. Digital files were superimposed to compare profilometric volume on the buccal profile (primary outcome); peri-implant health, radiographic bone levels, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also assessed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both treatments achieved a significant STA at 3 months, with a slight decrease observed from 1 month. At 3 months, the mean increase was 1.07 mm (SD 0.22) for VCMX and 1.22 mm (SD 0.44) for the CTG group (<i>p</i> = 0.156). PROMs revealed a difference in the perception of the bleeding at day 1, pain at 2 and 3 days, and swelling at 3 days favoring VCMX (<i>p</i> < 0.05). At 1 year, no intergroup difference in probing pocket depth, bleeding, and recession was detected, but CTG provided higher stability than VCMX in terms of profilometric measurements (0.21 mm [SD 0.32] vs. −0.05 mm [SD 0.36], respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.014) and radiographic bone levels (0.09 mm [SD 0.65] vs. −0.34 mm [SD 0.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.038).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>For implant placement at posterior sites with small buccal bone dehiscences, CTG and VCMX resulted in an initially comparable volume augmentation and clinical parameters, with VCMX leading to better PROMs. At 1 year, CTG maintained slightly higher profilometric stability and bone levels.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\\n \\n <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05466006 (https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05466006)</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"36 7\",\"pages\":\"846-858\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/clr.14430\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14430\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14430","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：本随机临床研究比较了同时使用体积稳定胶原基质（VCMX）或结缔组织移植物（CTG）增强部位的颊组织体积的轮廓测量结果与种植体放置在存在小颊骨裂（SBBD≤3mm）的情况下。方法：对44例SBBD患者进行软组织增强术（STA）治疗，同时使用VCMX或SCTG植入。临床测量和3D口腔内扫描在STA （BL）之前，1个月，3个月和1年后进行。将数字文件叠加以比较颊侧轮廓的轮廓体积（主要结果）；还评估了种植体周围健康、x线骨水平和患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）。结果：两种治疗方法均在3个月时获得显著STA，从1个月开始略有下降。3个月时，VCMX组平均增加1.07 mm (SD 0.22)， CTG组平均增加1.22 mm (SD 0.44) （p = 0.156）。结果显示，在第1天的出血、第2天和第3天的疼痛以及第3天的肿胀方面，VCMX更有利于患者。(p)结论：对于下颌小骨裂的后牙位置，CTG和VCMX最初的体积增大和临床参数相当，而VCMX导致更好的PROMs。1年时，CTG保持了稍高的轮廓稳定性和骨水平。试验注册：ClinicalTrials.gov标识符：NCT05466006 （https://classic）。临床试验:gov / ct2 /显示/ NCT05466006)。
Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Increase at Small Buccal Bone Dehiscences With Either Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Objectives
This randomized clinical study compared the profilometric measurements of the buccal tissue volume at sites augmented using a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) simultaneously to implant placement in the presence of small buccal bone dehiscence (SBBD ≤ 3 mm).
Methods
Forty-four patients with SBBD were treated with soft tissue augmentation (STA) simultaneous to implant placement using VCMX or SCTG. Clinical measurements and 3D intraoral scans were collected prior to STA (BL), at 1, 3 months, and 1 year after prosthetic loading. Digital files were superimposed to compare profilometric volume on the buccal profile (primary outcome); peri-implant health, radiographic bone levels, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also assessed.
Results
Both treatments achieved a significant STA at 3 months, with a slight decrease observed from 1 month. At 3 months, the mean increase was 1.07 mm (SD 0.22) for VCMX and 1.22 mm (SD 0.44) for the CTG group (p = 0.156). PROMs revealed a difference in the perception of the bleeding at day 1, pain at 2 and 3 days, and swelling at 3 days favoring VCMX (p < 0.05). At 1 year, no intergroup difference in probing pocket depth, bleeding, and recession was detected, but CTG provided higher stability than VCMX in terms of profilometric measurements (0.21 mm [SD 0.32] vs. −0.05 mm [SD 0.36], respectively; p = 0.014) and radiographic bone levels (0.09 mm [SD 0.65] vs. −0.34 mm [SD 0.70]; p = 0.038).
Conclusion
For implant placement at posterior sites with small buccal bone dehiscences, CTG and VCMX resulted in an initially comparable volume augmentation and clinical parameters, with VCMX leading to better PROMs. At 1 year, CTG maintained slightly higher profilometric stability and bone levels.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
