Evidence Hub

Soft tissue dimensional change following guided bone regeneration on peri-implant defects using soft-type block or particulate bone substitutes: 1-year outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Young W. Song, S. Bienz, G. Benic, Jae-Kook Cha, C. Hämmerle, U. Jung, R. Jung

Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2022

35 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peri-implant soft-tissue dimensional changes following guided bone regeneration between particulate (particle group) and collagenated soft-block-type (block group) biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study investigated 35 subjects: 18 particle-group and 17 block-group patients. Cone-beam computed tomography obtained at 6 months post-surgery and optical impressions taken periodically (presurgery, 6 months post-surgery and 1 year post-surgery) were superimposed. The ridge contour changes over time and the peri-implant mucosal thicknesses were measured diagonally and horizontally, and analysed statistically.

RESULTS

The increases in diagonal (1.12±0.78 mm) and horizontal (2.79±1.90 mm) ridge contour of the block group were significantly higher than the particle group during the first 6 months (p < 0.05), however, the contour hardly changed thereafter (diagonal: 0.07±0.75 mm; horizontal: -0.34±1.26 mm), resulting in the 1-year contour changes similar between the two groups. Regardless of the type of BCP, the ridge contour increased significantly over 1 year when the dehiscence defect had a contained configuration (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The soft-tissue dimensional increases for 1 year were similar between the two groups. The mucosal contour increase was larger when the surgery was conducted in a more-contained defect, and this was not influenced by the type of BCP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 35 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free