university of zurich - uzh€¦ · soft tissue augmentation, keratinized tissue, soft tissue...
Post on 31-May-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
University of ZurichZurich Open Repository and Archive
Winterthurerstr. 190
CH-8057 Zurich
http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Year: 2009
A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentationtechniques
Thoma, D S; Benić, G I; Zwahlen, M; Hämmerle, C H F; Jung, R E
Thoma, D S; Benić, G I; Zwahlen, M; Hämmerle, C H F; Jung, R E (2009). A systematic review assessing softtissue augmentation techniques. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20(Suppl. 4):146-165.Postprint available at:http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich.http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Originally published at:Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009, 20(Suppl. 4):146-165.
Thoma, D S; Benić, G I; Zwahlen, M; Hämmerle, C H F; Jung, R E (2009). A systematic review assessing softtissue augmentation techniques. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20(Suppl. 4):146-165.Postprint available at:http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich.http://www.zora.uzh.ch
Originally published at:Clinical Oral Implants Research 2009, 20(Suppl. 4):146-165.
A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentationtechniques
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the present review was to systematically assess the dental literature in terms of softtissue grafting techniques. The focused question was: is there superiority of one method over others foraugmentation and stability of the augmented soft tissue in terms of increasing the width of keratinizedtissue (part 1), and gain in soft tissue volume (part 2). Methods: A Medline search was performed forhuman studies focusing on augmentation of keratinized tissue and/or soft tissue volume, andcomplimented by additional hand searching. Relevant studies were identified and statistical resultsreported for meta-analyses including the test minus control weighted mean differences (WMD) with95% confidence intervals (CI), the I-squared statistic for tests of heterogeneity, and the number ofsignificant studies. Results: Twenty-five (part 1) and three (part 2) studies met the inclusion criteria; 14studies (part 1) were eligible for comparison using meta-analyses. An apically positionedflap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) procedure resulted in a statistically significantly greater gain in keratinizedtissue than untreated controls. APF/V plus autogenous tissue revealed statistically significant moreattached gingiva compared to untreated controls and a borderline statistical significance compared toAPF/V plus allogenic tissue. Statistically significantly more shrinkage was observed for APF/V plusallogenic graft compared to APF/V plus autogenous tissue. Patient-centered outcomes did not reveal asuperiority of any of the treatment methods regarding post-operative complications. The 3 studiesreporting on soft tissue volume augmentation could not be compared due to lack of homogeneity. Theuse of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) resulted in statistically significantly more softtissue volume gain compared to free gingival grafts (FGGs). Conclusions: APF/V is a successfultreatment concept to increase the width of keratinized tissue or attached gingiva around teeth. Theaddition of autogenous tissue statistically significantly increases the width of attached gingiva. For softtissue volume augmentation only limited data are available favoring SCTGs over FGG.
A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentation techniques – EAO Group 3 Thoma DS,1 Benić GI,1 Zwahlen M,2 Hämmerle CHF,1 Jung RE1
Key words:
soft tissue augmentation, keratinized tissue, soft tissue volume, subepithelial connective tissue graft, free gingival graft, allogenic dermal matrix, human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute, vestibuloplasty
Running title:
Soft tissue grafting – a systematic review
Address for correspondence: Daniel S. Thoma, Dr. med. dent.
Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science University of Zurich Plattenstrasse 11 CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland Phone: +41 44 634 32 57 Fax: +41 44 634 43 05 e-mail: daniel.thoma@zzmk.uzh.ch
1 Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, University of
Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 2 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
Abstract Aim: The aim of the present review was to systematically assess the dental literature in terms
of soft tissue grafting techniques. The focused question was: is there superiority of one
method over others for augmentation and stability of the augmented soft tissue in terms of
increasing the width of keratinized tissue (part 1), and gain in soft tissue volume (part 2).
Methods: A Medline search was performed for human studies focusing on augmentation of
keratinized tissue and/or soft tissue volume, and complimented by additional hand searching.
Relevant studies were identified and statistical results reported for meta-analyses including
the test minus control weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI),
the I-squared statistic for tests of heterogeneity, and the number of significant studies.
Results: Twenty-five (part 1) and three (part 2) studies met the inclusion criteria; 14 studies
(part 1) were eligible for comparison using meta-analyses. An apically positioned
flap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) procedure resulted in a statistically significantly greater gain in
keratinized tissue than untreated controls. APF/V plus autogenous tissue revealed statistically
significant more attached gingiva compared to untreated controls and a borderline statistical
significance compared to APF/V plus allogenic tissue. Statistically significantly more
shrinkage was observed for APF/V plus allogenic graft compared to APF/V plus autogenous
tissue. Patient-centered outcomes did not reveal a superiority of any of the treatment methods
regarding post-operative complications. The 3 studies reporting on soft tissue volume
augmentation could not be compared due to lack of homogeneity. The use of subepithelial
connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) resulted in statistically significantly more soft tissue volume
gain compared to free gingival grafts (FGGs).
Conclusions: APF/V is a successful treatment concept to increase the width of keratinized
tissue or attached gingiva around teeth. The addition of autogenous tissue statistically
significantly increases the width of attached gingiva. For soft tissue volume augmentation
only limited data are available favoring SCTGs over FGG.
2
Introduction
Soft tissue augmentation with autogenous grafts is a widely used procedure in a
variety of disciplines in dentistry. It is indicated in partially and fully edentulous patients to
augment areas with a lack of or a reduced width of keratinized tissue, as well as to increase
soft tissue volume. Various studies suggested associations between an adequate width of
keratinized tissue, higher survival rates of dental implants, health of the peri-implant mucosa,
and an improved esthetic outcome (Adell et al. 1986; Artzi et al. 1993; Langer 1996).
However, two recent reviews concluded that there is insufficient or even a lack of evidence
regarding the influence of the width of keratinized tissue on the survival rate and future
mucosal recessions (Esposito et al. 2007; Cairo et al. 2008).
With respect to teeth, a certain amount of keratinized tissue has been considered
necessary for maintaining periodontal health and prevent gingival recession (Nabers 1966;
Sullivan & Atkins 1969). It was also concluded that for the maintenance of gingival health
2mm of keratinized gingiva is adequate (Lang and Löe 1972). Since an adequate amount of
keratinized tissue has not been defined yet, the decision to augment the width of keratinized
gingiva around dental implants and teeth still depends on the clinician's choice and the
planned surgical and prosthetic treatment. Historically, the methods to augment keratinized
tissue included: i) an apically positioned flap (APF), ii) an APF in combination with
autogenous tissue and, iii) an APF in combination with allogenic tissue (Friedman 1962; Edel
1974; Yukna & Sullivan 1978).
Autogenous soft tissue grafting procedures have also been proposed to surgically
correct localized alveolar defects, as pre-prosthetic site-development, and as ridge
preservation procedures (Seibert 1983; Studer et al. 2000; Jung et al. 2004; Prato et al. 2004).
As for the augmentation of keratinized tissue, traditionally, the free gingival graft (FGG) and
the subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) have been described to increase soft tissue
volume (Seibert 1983).
Disadvantages of using autogenous tissue are mainly due to the harvesting procedure,
which leads to a prolonged healing time at the donor site and therefore to an increased
patient's morbidity (Farnoush 1978; Griffin et al. 2006). Patients often complain about pain
and numbness for several weeks after the surgery (Del Pizzo et al. 2002; Soileau & Brannon
2006). On the other hand, anatomical and individual limitations exist. Depending on the shape
of the palatal vault, the patient's sex and age the quantity and quality of tissue that can be
3
retrieved varies. The location of the palatal vessels and nerves further limit the total amount
that is available for grafting procedures (Soileau & Brannon 2006).
In order to overcome these issues with autogenous tissue, alternatives techniques and
materials primarily of allogenic origin have been developed. Among the first products
introduced in mucogingival surgery were freeze-dried skin allografts, initially used as
replacement for FGGs in combination with an APF for the augmentation of keratinized tissue
(Yukna & Sullivan 1978). Later in the eighties, allogenic dermal substitutes like the acellular
dermal matrix graft (ADMG; Alloderm™, Life Cell Corporation, The Woodlands, TX),
originally developed for covering full thickness burn wounds (Wainwright 1995) have been
used to increase keratinized tissue, for root coverage procedure, to deepen the vestibular
fornix, and to augment localized alveolar defects (Wei et al. 2000; Aichelmann-Reidy et al.
2001; Batista et al. 2001; Harris 2003).
Recent techniques follow the guidelines of tissue-engineering. Tissue-engineered
products are based on isolated cells or cell substitutes, tissue-inducing substances (biologic
mediators), and scaffolds of natural or synthetic origin (Langer & Vacanti 1993). In contrast
to ADMG, newer grafts like the human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (HF-DDS,
Dermagraft⎢, Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA), and a human skin
equivalent (BCT, Apligraf⎢, Organogenesis, Canton, MA, USA) include a cellular
component. Both grafts have been investigated in clinical trials in comparison to autogenous
soft tissue to increase the width of keratinized tissue (McGuire & Nunn 2005; McGuire et al.
2008).
Since techniques and materials have changed quite extensively over the last decades,
there is a lack of information and a strong need to critically assess the dental literature for
optimized procedures and grafts in terms of soft tissue augmentation.
The aim of the present review was to systematically assess the dental literature in
terms of soft tissue grafting techniques. The focused question was, whether there is
superiority of one method over others for augmentation and stability of the augmented soft
tissue in terms of i) increasing the width of keratinized tissue (part 1), and ii) gain in soft
tissue volume (part 2).
4
Material and Methods
Search strategy A Medline (PubMed) search was performed for human studies, including articles
published from January 1, 1966 up to August 31, 2008 in the Dental literature. The search
was limited to the English, French, German, and Italian language. The search was
complemented by manual searches of the reference list of all selected full-text articles.
Additionally, full text articles of reviews published between January 2005 and August 2008
were obtained. An additional hand search was performed searching for relevant studies by
screening these reviews.
Search Terms The following search terms were selected: “acellular dermal matrix” OR “dermal
matrix allograft” OR “alloderm” OR “keratinized gingiva” OR “keratinized tissue” OR “soft
tissue graft” OR “subepithelial connective tissue graft” OR „connective tissue“ OR “free
gingival graft” OR “human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute” OR “dermagraft” OR
“apligraf” OR “gingival autograft” OR “attached gingiva” OR “attached mucosa” OR
“keratinized mucosa” OR “soft tissue augmentation” OR “soft tissue transplantation” OR
„vestibuloplasty“ OR “ridge augmentation” OR “soft tissue correction”. The search was
limited to “human trial“ (MeSH term, clinical studies), and “Dental Journals”. Additionally,
the MeSH terms “clinical trial“, “comparative study“, “controlled clinical trial“, “randomized
controlled trial“, “meta-analysis”, and “review” were used.
Inclusion criteria
The applied inclusion criteria were different for studies dealing with gain of
keratinized tissue or gain of soft tissue volume.
Part 1: augmentation of keratinized tissue Any prospective cohort study with at least 5 patients was included. A follow-up
period of at least 3 months was required. The reported treatment outcomes had to include
either clinical and/or histological measures of the width of keratinized tissue (test) and the
control(s). The primary outcome of the studies had to be localized augmentation of
keratinized tissue.
5
Part 2: augmentation of soft tissue volume For studies focusing on soft tissue volume gain, any prospective case series with at
least 5 patients was included. The minimal follow-up time was 3 months. The reported
treatment outcomes had to include either clinical and/or histological measures of the soft
tissue volume.
Exclusion criteria Studies not meeting all inclusion criteria were excluded from the review. Publications
dealing with the following topics were also excluded: in vitro studies, preclinical (animal)
studies, studies dealing with the treatment of recession defects, and studies augmenting soft
tissue in fully edentulous patients.
Selection of studies Titles derived from this broad search were independently screened by 2 authors (DT,
GB) based on the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Cohen’s
Kappa-coefficient was used as a measure of agreement between the 2 readers. Following this,
abstracts of all titles agreed on by both authors were obtained, and screened for meeting the
inclusion criteria. If no abstract was available in the database, the abstract of the printed
article was used. The selected articles were then obtained in full text. If title and abstract did
not provide sufficient information regarding the inclusion criteria, the full report was obtained
as well. Again, disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Finally, the selection based on inclusion/exclusion criteria was made for the full text
articles. For this purpose Material and Methods, and Results of these studies were screened.
This step was again carried out independently by 2 readers. Disagreements were resolved by
discussion.
Data extraction Two reviewers independently extracted the data using data extraction tables. Any
disagreements were resolved by discussion aiming for consensus. For abbreviations used
throughout text, tables, and figures please refer to Table 1.
Part 1: keratinized tissue For studies on keratinized tissue augmentation, information on the following
parameters was extracted: author(s), year of publication, study design, total number of
patients, number of patients test group, number of patients control group(s), total number of
6
sites, number of sites test group, number of sites control group(s), follow-up period, graft test
group, graft control group(s), type of treatment, width of keratinized tissue, width of attached
gingiva, shrinkage of attached gingiva, augmented area, shrinkage of augmented area, width
of graft, shrinkage of graft, depth of vestibulum, as well as patient-reported outcomes
(postoperative bleeding, swelling, pain, toleration of procedure), and esthetics). Figure 1
represents a schematic drawing of the analyzed parameters.
Part 2: augmentation of soft tissue volume Information on the following parameters was extracted: author(s), year of publication,
study design, total number of patients, number of patients test group, number of patients
control group(s), total number of sites, number of sites test group, number of sites control
group(s), follow-up period, graft test group, graft control group(s), type of defect, gain/change
in volume.
Statistical Analysis Based on the reported treatment modalities and the outcomes measured, a meta-
analysis was performed for 14 studies for part 1 (keratinized tissue) for three types of
continuous outcome measures: (1) mean change in width of keratinized tissue in mm from
baseline to end of study (10 studies), (2) percentage shrinkage of width of keratinized tissue
in mm from baseline to follow-up (2 studies), (3) mean width of attached gingiva at follow-up
(10 studies). The outcome of interest was, for each study, the post intervention mean
difference between test and control group. To be able to perform a meta-analysis on mean
differences, size of the test and control group and standard deviations of measures of interest
needed to be available from the study reports. Forest plots were produced to graphically
depict study specific mean differences and summary estimates obtained from the meta-
analyses. We report 95% confidence intervals (CI), Cochran’s Q statistic and the I-squared
statistic for testing for and quantifying of heterogeneity. The I-squared measure describes the
proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity (Higgins &
Thompson 2001). Whenever substantial heterogeneity was present, random effects meta-
analysis was performed. Meta-analyses were performed using the user-written “metan”
command for use in Stata (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX).
7
Results
Study characteristics The electronic search identified a total of 1471 titles (for details refer to Fig. 2). From
assessing the titles, 1356 were excluded (inter-reader agreement k=0.82 ± 0.02). The resulting
number of abstracts obtained was 115 out of which 67 were excluded (inter-reader agreement
k=0.81 ± 0.05). Sixty-five full text articles were obtained including 7 studies found through
hand searching. Finally, 25 (keratinized tissue), and 3 (soft tissue volume) articles met the
inclusion criteria.
Exclusion of studies The reasons for excluding studies (n=31, Table 2) after the full text was obtained
were: no reported or insufficient clinical, or histological treatment outcomes (e.g. only
descriptive presentation of results; n=13), no control group (n=8), fully edentulous patients
(n=3), an insufficient number of patients (n=1), retrospective study (n=1), insufficient follow-
up data (n=1), description of technique (n=1), root coverage procedure (n=1), retrospective
study (n=1), soft tissue augmentation in combination with implant placement (n=1).
Included studies The 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3
represents data for studies regarding „keratinized tissue“ (part 1; 25 studies). Table 4 refers to
clinical studies dealing with „soft tissue volume“ (part 2; 3 studies).
Part 1: Keratinized tissue
Treatment outcomes
Patient-based treatment outcomes on augmentation of keratinized tissue retrieved
from 25 included studies are presented in Tables 3, and 5 - 7. Ten studies were designed as
randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), four as cohort studies, and eleven as controlled
clinical trials (CCT). More than 585 patients were treated for augmentation of keratinized soft
tissue or attached gingiva. The methods and techniques used for augmentation of keratinized
tissue included: no treatment or scaling and root planning, vestibuloplasty, APF in various
forms and designs, APF/V in combination with autogenous tissue (FGG, SCTG), APF/V in
combination with allogenic grafts (ADMG, BCT, FDS, HF-DDS). The mean follow-up
period was 63 weeks (12 to 432). The reason for treating the patients encompassed a lack of
or an inadequate width of attached gingiva/keratinized tissue (22 studies), or vestibuloplasty
8
(3 studies). In summary, 14 studies were eligible for comparison using meta-analyses i) ten
studies in terms of mean gain in width of keratinized tissue, ii) two studies in terms of
shrinkage of keratinized tissue and, iii) ten studies in terms of final width of attached gingiva.
(1) Mean gain in width of keratinized tissue (Table 5; Fig. 3)
A total of 12 studies (7 RCTs, 3 CCTs, 2 cohort studies) could be compared for mean
gain in keratinized tissue using meta-analyses (Table 5). The use of an APF/V plus
autogenous tissue resulted in a statistically significant weighted mean difference (WMD) of
4.49mm (4.28, 4.71) compared to no treatment (p = 0.000) (Fig. 3A). The I-square value of
96.6% indicated a statistically significant heterogeneity between the 4 studies (p = 0.000).
Based on one study reporting on outcomes of two different APF/V plus SCTG techniques,
there was a statistically not significant WMD of 0.34mm (-0.45, 1.13) favoring method 11
over method 22 (p = 0.401; Fig. 3B). The use of an APF/V plus an allogenic graft (ADMG)
was slightly more favorable in terms of gain in keratinized tissue than an APF/V alone
(0.70mm; -0.14, 1.54) (Fig. 3C). A borderline statistical difference was observed between the
two treatment modalities (p = 0.052). The mean difference between an APF/V with either an
allogenic graft or an autogenous graft was -0.85mm (-1.71, 0.01) (Fig. 3D). Even though
showing a high standard deviation, this mean gain in keratinized tissue was statistically
significantly different in favor of the groups using autogenous tissue (p = 0.000). The I-
squared value indicated significant heterogeneity between the different studies (94.6%; p =
0.000). Fenestration of the flap when using a FDS statistically significantly improved the gain
in keratinized tissue (1.22mm; 0.71, 1.73; p = 0.000) (Fig. 3E).
(2) Percent shrinkage of keratinized tissue (Table 6; Fig. 4)
Two RCTs reporting on percent shrinkage of keratinized tissue were compared using
a meta-analysis (Wei et al. 2000; McGuire & Nunn 2005; Table 6; Fig. 4). The WMD with
95% confidence interval (CI) between the allogenic groups (APF/V plus ADMG or HF-DDS)
and the control groups (APF/V plus FGG) was 28.41% (23.56, 33.26). The mean shrinkage
was statistically significantly greater in the allogenic groups (p = 0.0000). The I-squared
value of 95.1% indicated a significant heterogeneity between the two studies (p = 0.000).
1 A partial thickness flap is raised and the SCTG is taken from below the palatal surface. 2 The SCTG is obtained by the thinning of a full thickness palatal flap.
9
(3) Width of attached gingiva (Table 7; Fig. 5)
Fifteen studies reported data on the width of the attached gingiva including 6 RCTs, 8
CCTs, and 1 cohort study (Table 7). Based on 5 studies, the width of the attached gingiva
postoperatively was statistically significantly greater when APF/V plus autogenous tissue
groups were compared to control groups (no treatment) (p = 0.000) (Fig. 5A). The WMD
with 95% confidence interval (CI) was 3.94mm (3.64, 4.23). The I-squared value of 98.4%
indicated a significant heterogeneity between the studies (p = 0.000). The comparison
between APF/V with or without the addition of autogenous tissue revealed a statistically
significant WMD of 0.83mm (0.42, 1.25) in favor of the groups using autogenous tissue (p =
0.010) (Fig. 5B). Again, the I-squared value of 78.4% revealed significant heterogeneity
between the two studies (p = 0.010). The addition of an allogenic graft (ADMG) to an APF/V
resulted in a minor gain of 0.70mm (-0.10, 1.50) compared to the APF/V alone (Fig. 5C). The
comparison between an APF/V with either an FGG or a BCT revealed a statistically
significant difference of 1.52mm (1.73, 1.31) in favor of the group using the autogenous FGG
(p = 0.000) (Fig. 5D). One study comparing an APF/V plus FDS with or without fenestration
of the flap demonstrated a statistically significant WMD of 1.17mm (0.61, 1.73) in favor of
the group using a fenestration of the flap (p = 0.000; Fig. 5E).
(4) Percent shrinkage of attached gingiva
One CCT reported on the shrinkage of the attached gingiva using two different
treatment modalities (Schoo & Coppes 1976). The shrinkage of the attached gingiva was
statistically significantly greater for an APF/V in combination with lyophilized dura mater
(mean = 63.1%; SD = 9.3) compared to an APF/V with a FGG (20.7%; SD 11.1) (Schoo &
Coppes 1976).
(5) Percent shrinkage of graft / grafted area
Seven CCTs, 1 RCT, and 1 cohort study reported on the shrinkage of the graft /
grafted area (Richter et al. 1973; Matthiessen & Diedrich 1974; James & McFall 1978; Lange
et al. 1981; Mörmann et al. 1981; Marxer et al. 1982; Pöllmann & Scherer 1983). No
statistically significant differences were observed between most of the various treatment
modalities (different techniques for vestibuloplasty). A borderline significance was observed
10
in favor of a FGG placed on the periosteum (36.67%) instead of directly on the bone
(23.25%) (James & McFall 1978). In one study, FGGs were placed at sites with less than
1mm of attached gingiva (Mörmann et al. 1981). The FGGs were retrieved either by using a
mucotom or a blade and, with various thicknesses ranging from 0.37mm to 0.92mm. The
group with the thickest mean FGG retrieved showed statistically significantly less shrinkage
(30%) than grafts with a mean thickness of 0.37mm (45% shrinkage) and 0.56mm (44%).
(6) Vestibular area
One CCT evaluated the augmented vestibular area for two different treatment
modalities (Lange et al. 1981). A greater vestibular area was observed after 6 months for the
control group (vestibuloplasty according to Plagmann 1979; 297mm2) compared to the test
group (vestibuloplasty according to Schmid & Mörmann 1976; 236mm2) (Lange et al. 1981).
(7) Depth of vestibulum
Two CCTs reported data for the depth of the vestibulum following different
vestibuloplasty procedures (Lange et al. 1981; Marxer et al. 1982). No statistically significant
differences were observed between an APF in combination with a FGG (mean 3.9mm; SD
1.1) compared to an Edlan-Mejchar flap (3.9mm; SD 1.1) for the treatment of an inadequate
width of attached gingiva (Marxer et al. 1982). Slightly more gain in vestibular depth was
found using the Schmid & Mörmann 1976 procedure (12.5%) than with the Plagmann 1979
procedure (12.2%) (Lange et al. 1981).
(8) Patient-reported outcomes and esthetics
Two studies (1 CCT, 1 RCT) reported on post-operative pain (Dordick et al. 1976;
Harris 2001). In one study, patients were treated for an inadequate width of gingiva.
Perception of pain was measured based on the utilization of analgesic postoperatively.
Patients felt slightly more comfortable when the FGG was placed on the periosteum instead
of placing it directly on bone. The differences between the groups were not statistically
significantly different (Dordick et al. 1976). In the second study, three treatment modalities
were compared for augmentation of keratinized tissue: i) an ADMG, ii) a SCTG, iii) an FGG.
No differences in pain perception were observed between patients treated with ADMG and
FGG; however, more pain was reported for SCTG- compared to ADMG-treated patients
(Harris 2001).
11
No significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative bleeding in a
RCT comparing a tissue-engineered skin product (BCT) to a FGG (McGuire et al. 2008).
However, it appears to be a difference whether a FGG is placed directly on bone (less
bleeding, less swelling) or on periosteum for post-operative hemostasis and swelling (Dordick
et al. 1976).
The overall patient morbidity (pain, swelling, bleeding) was evaluated in another
RCT revealing no differences between the two treatment modalities (HF-DDS vs. FGG;
McGuire & Nunn 2005). However, subject's treatment preference was significantly greater in
the allograft group (BCT) compared to the control group (FGG) in a recently published study
(McGuire et al. 2008). In addition, a better color and texture match to the surrounding tissue
was reported for the allograft groups (HF-DDS; BCT) compared to control sites (FGG) in two
recent studies (McGuire & Nunn 2005; McGuire et al. 2008).
Part 2: Augmentation of soft tissue volume
Three studies met the inclusion criteria as they reported on soft tissue volume
augmentation (Allen et al. 1985; Studer et al. 2000; Batista et al. 2001). Two studies were
designed as cohort studies (Allen et al. 1985; Studer et al. 2000), one as a case series (Batista
et al. 2001). No meta-analysis could be performed due to heterogeneity in study design and
treatment modalities.
Treatment outcomes (Table 8)
In the first case series, 21 patients with 26 localized alveolar defects were treated
either with a SCTG or hydroxylapatite implants. The authors reported that 14 of 14 sites
(SCTG) showed some shrinkage within the first 4-6 weeks, but that the augmented sites
remained stable for three years. In 10 of 12 sites treated with hydroxylapatite implants, no
shrinkage was observed. It was not mentioned how the measurements were performed (Allen
et al. 1985). In the second case series, localized alveolar defects in eight patients with 18 sites
were treated with ADMG. A gain in vertical ridge width of 0.61mm (SD 0.77) and in
horizontal ridge width of 1.72mm (SD 0.59) was observed over 6 months. The shrinkage of
the horizontal ridge width was 41.4% over the same period (Batista et al. 2001). In a cohort
study, localized alveolar ridge defects were treated with either a FGG or a SCTG. Patients
were followed for 3.5 months. The augmented sites revealed a volume gain between 159
mm3 (SCTG; SD = 80) and 104 mm3 (FGG; SD = 31). The differences between the two
12
treatment modalities were statistically significant in favor of the SCTG group. The untreated
defects showed a slight increase in volume of 6mm3 (SD = 5.4), which was statistically
significantly different compared to the two test groups using autogenous tissue (Studer et al.
2000).
13
Discussion
The present systematic review focused to answer the question whether there is superiority of
one method to others for soft tissue augmentation techniques. In terms of increasing the width
of keratinized tissue, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Out of these, 14 could be compared
using meta-analyses. In terms of soft tissue volume augmentation, only 3 studies met the
inclusion criteria. No meta-analysis could be performed due to heterogeneity between the
studies.
Part 1 (augmentation of keratinized tissue/attached gingiva)
Mean gain in width of keratinized tissue
The present review demonstrated superiority of APF/V plus autogenous tissue. This
information is derived from studies comparing APF/V plus autogenous tissue versus scaling
and root planing and versus untreated controls. The overall WMD was statistically significant,
even though showing large heterogeneity between the studies.
It would be interesting to see what the effect of autogenous tissue in this treatment concept is.
However, this outcome could not be evaluated due to a lack of further control groups or other
studies. There is a need for studies evaluating the effect of autogenous tissue, especially since
this treatment concept is associated with higher morbidity due to the second surgical site
(Wessel & Tatakis 2008).
To overcome issues associated with higher morbidity when autogenous tissue is used,
allogenic grafts have been introduced in mucogingival surgery. Allogenic grafts have been
tested in combination with APF/V. The results of one included study demonstrated only a
borderline statistical significance compared to APF/V alone (Mohammadi et al. 2007).
Based on the results of this review, the direct comparison of APF/V plus either autogenous or
allogenic tissue revealed a statistically significant difference favoring the use of autogenous
tissue. Interestingly, differences between the various allogenic grafts were observed. One
study compared an APF/V procedure with the addition of an ADMG, a FGG, or a SCTG
(Harris 2001). The ADMG was more favorable as the FGG, but slightly less effective
compared to the SCTG. On the other hand, the tissue-engineered grafts (HF-DDS, BCT)
demonstrated statistically significantly less gain in keratinized tissue than the respective
control groups (autogenous tissue). Overall, an APF/V plus an ADMG appears to be more
effective than the tissue-engineered grafts (BCT, HF-DDS) in comparison with autogenous
tissue. However, one might speculate that these observations are due to the fact that the
initially transplanted width of the graft was larger in one study (Harris 2001) than in the other
14
two studies, where the width of the grafts for control and test sites was held constant (5mm)
(McGuire & Nunn 2005; McGuire et al. 2008). Unfortunately, the first study does not provide
information on the width of the graft that was transplanted (Harris 2001).
Percent shrinkage of keratinized tissue
The meta-analysis revealed statistically significant less shrinkage for the autogenous control
groups (FGG; Table 5; Fig. 3). The reason for the large shrinkage of ADMG compared to
autogenous tissue may be due to its fabrication process. ADMG is processed from cadaver
skin and the epidermis and cellular material are removed. Histologic observations of ADMG
placed to increase the width of keratinized tissue showed tissue that substantially differed
from any oral mucosa (Wei et al. 2002). The connective tissue portion of the ADMG
contained dense collagen fibers with scattered elastic fibers. The epithelial layer covering the
connective tissue showed heterogenous expression of keratinization and a flat epithelium-
connective tissue interface. The epithelium was mostly para- or orthokeratinized towards the
gingiva and non-keratinized to the alveolar mucosa. The authors suggested that due to the
non-vital matrix of the ADMG the epithelium-connective tissue of the surrounding recipient
site directed the epithelium differentiation of the ADMG (Wei et al. 2002). These findings
may predominantly explain the high shrinkage of this allogenic dermal matrix. On the other
hand, the HF-DDS is obtained from neonatal fibroblasts on a polyglyactin mesh. The included
cells can multiply and produce collagen and growth factors, which can produce greater tissue.
The shrinkage reported for HF-DDS is still greater than for autogenous tissue, but the mean
shrinkage values are lower in comparison to studies using ADMG (Wei et al. 2000; McGuire
& Nunn 2005). The inclusion of living cells (tissue-engineering) may therefore play a critical
role as the cells could enhance the results by stabilizing the allogenic tissue through the
production of extracellular matrix molecules, fibers and growth factors.
Shrinkage of the graft / grafted area
No statistically significant differences were observed in the various studies comparing
different vestibuloplasty procedures. The only difference observed was that more shrinkage of
FGGs was observed when they were placed on the periosteum rather than on bone (James &
McFall 1978). This observation from one single study is surprising since the periosteum is
known to be a highly vascularized tissue and can provide blood supply within short distance
to grafts. The outcome is also in contrast to an experimental study in rats, which showed the
importance of the periosteum for the healing of full-thickness skin defects (Koga et al. 2007).
It was demonstrated that the thickness of the grafts (FGG) had an influence on the shrinkage
(Mörmann et al. 1981). The thickest grafts showed statistically significantly the least
15
shrinkage. Similar findings with an allogenic graft (HF-DDS) regarding the relationship
thickness and shrinkage were reported (McGuire & Nunn 2005). In that study, multiple-layer
HF-DDS showed significantly less shrinkage and greater keratinized tissue than monolayer
HF-DDS.
Width of attached gingiva
The results of the present review indicate that the combination of APF/V plus autogenous
tissue is a successful treatment concept with a statistically significantly greater increase in
attached gingiva compared to untreated control groups. The addition of autogenous tissue to
an APF/V improved the outcome compared to an APF/V alone. Unfortunately, no studies
were identified comparing an APF/V to untreated control groups. Therefore, the effect of the
APF/V procedure can only be calculated indirectly. Based on a WMD between APF/V plus
autogenous tissue and an APF/V procedure of 0.83mm (0.42, 1.25), and a WMD between
APF/V plus autogenous tissue and untreated controls of 3.94mm (3.64, 4.23), the effect of the
APF/V should be around 3mm. The greatest increase in width of keratinized tissue therefore
derives from the APF/V procedure. The effect of the autogenous tissue appears to be rather
small, even though statistically significant based on two included studies. When using an
APF/V in combination with a FDS demonstrated that the fenestration of the flap had a
statistically significant influence on the outcome (Gher et al. 1980). The effect of the FDS
remains unclear as the cited study did not have a control group without the allogenic graft and
no other studies using FDS were included. Another study using an APF/V procedure with or
without the addition of an ADMG demonstrated a borderline difference in favor of the group
using the ADMG (Mohammadi et al. 2007). The direct comparison between a tissue-
engineered product (BCT) and a FGG both in combination with an APF/V resulted in
statistically significantly more attached gingiva for the autogenous group (FGG) (McGuire et
al. 2008). Again, no other control group (APF/V alone) was included. The effect of the
APF/V alone could therefore not be calculated.
Patient-reported outcomes and esthetics
A recent publication evaluating patient outcomes following subepithelial connective tissue
graft and free gingival graft procedures demonstrated that FGG is associated with a greater
incidence of donor site pain compared to SCTG at three days (Wessel & Tatakis 2008). In the
present review, five included studies reported outcomes on the toleration of the procedure, or
the postoperative comfort of the patients. Patients felt slightly more comfortable, but reported
more bleeding and swelling when the FGG was placed on the periosteum rather than directly
on the bone (Dordick et al. 1976). The major advantage of using allogenic grafts instead of
16
autogenous tissue is suggested to be the abandonment of a second surgical site. In a
prospective clinical study evaluating postoperative complications following gingival
augmentation procedures, the use of ADMG (instead of FGG or SCTG) significantly reduced
the probability of swelling and bleeding at the donor site (Griffin et al. 2006). The same
treatment modalities (ADMG, FGG, SCTG) were compared in one of the included studies
(Harris 2001). No differences in pain perception were observed between patients treated with
ADMG or FGG; but, more pain was reported by patients receiving SCTGs than ADMGs. No
significant differences were observed with respect to postoperative bleeding in a study
comparing a tissue-engineered graft (BCT) to an FGG, however the patient's treatment
preference was significantly greater in the allogenic group (BCT; McGuire et al. 2008). The
overall patient morbidity (pain, swelling, bleeding) was comparable when the two treatment
modalities HF-DDS and FGG were evaluated (McGuire & Nunn 2005). One reason for these
observations might be the fact that patients were treated in a split-mouth design, which could
make it difficult for the patients to differentiate between the two sites. Another explanation is
that the questionnaires were not administered to the patients until 3 to 12 months following
the surgery. Important information of the postoperative outcome might have been missed.
Part 2 (augmentation of soft tissue volume)
Three studies met the inclusion criteria for augmentation of soft tissue volume. Out of these,
only one was designed as a comparative cohort study (Studer et al. 2000). The greatest
amount of soft tissue volume was observed for the SCTG group with significant differences to
the control groups (FGG, untreated sites). No comparative studies were found using allogenic
grafts instead of autogenous tissue for volumetric augmentation. The evidence for volumetric
soft tissue augmentation techniques is therefore low. SCTGs can be recommended for
augmentation of localized alveolar defects. However, one has to bear in mind that these
results are derived from only one study including 30 patients with a follow-up of 14 weeks
and a significant decrease in volume (graft shrinkage) between 4 and 14 weeks.
Several reasons may be responsible for the low number of studies published in this field: first,
the currently investigated grafts other than autogenous tissue are very thin due to the
manufacturing process. Any volume augmentation would likely require larger amounts of
tissue or, a folding procedure would be necessary to gain greater volume. A folding process
further hampers vascularization of the graft and could provoke extensive shrinkage, which is
critical especially for acellular dermal grafts (Batista et al. 2001; Wei et al. 2002). Second,
allogenic grafts including living cells might be a better alternative, since these grafts tend to
show less shrinkage than acellular dermal substitutes. On the other hand, these grafts appear
17
to build an epithelial layer and the effect of a folding procedure remains unclear. Options for
future grafts might include collagen-based matrices, which have been evaluated in preclinical
and clinical studies in ridge preservation techniques and are currently under investigation for
soft tissue volume augmentation (Jung et al. 2004; Heberer et al. 2008; Araujo et al. 2009). In
contrast to grafts to increase the width of keratinized tissue, collagen-based matrices intended
to be used for volume augmentation are not placed in sites with a lack of or a reduced
vascular supply. The grafts are fully surrounded by soft tissue at the recipient site. Therefore,
one might speculate that suitable grafts would not be dependent on enclosed living cells
(tissue-engineered products). On the other hand, higher demands are needed regarding the
mechanical properties since shear and compression forces are constantly applied to the grafts.
Third, and possibly the most important reason is that there is currently no standardized
reliable technique available for the measurement of soft tissue volume. In one of the included
studies, a time-consuming procedure based upon cast measurements was applied. For the
measurements using the so-called Moiré method extensive appliances are required (Studer et
al. 2000). These aspects influence and limit the clinical applicability. In another study,
measurements were performed using a periodontal probe. These measurements may not
reflect the changes of the entire augmented volume (Batista et al. 2001). Recently, a new
method has been described to measure soft tissue volume (Windisch et al. 2007). In operative
dentistry for example an optical system is available that allows one to capture information
about the shape of tooth preparations and the adjacent soft tissue contours (Mörmann &
Brandestini 1996). With this system a three-dimensional image is obtained after scanning the
intraoral anatomy with a camera (Schneider 2003). In a methodological in vitro study, several
datasets of three-dimensional objects were captured and volumetric differences measured.
The tested optical three-dimensional system showed excellent accuracy and high
reproducibility for measuring volume differences between specimens imitating alveolar ridge
defects after augmentation procedures (Windisch et al. 2007). The same method has been
used to measure dimensional changes of the ridge contour in a preclinical study (Fickl et al.
2009) and, to document volumetric soft tissue changes of the interdental papilla (Strebel et al.
2009). Since this method is non-invasive, and has been established in preclinical and clinical
studies, it might be applicable for the desired measurements of soft tissue volume differences.
18
Conclusions
The present systematic review revealed that with respect to increasing the width of
keratinized tissue or attached gingiva around teeth, apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty
procedures (APF/V) are successful treatment concepts. The addition of autogenous tissue
statistically significantly increases the width of attached gingiva. Based on the included
studies, the various allogenic grafts in combination with APF/V do not improve the outcome
regarding the mean gain in width of keratinized tissue and the width of attached gingiva
postoperatively compared to the use of APF/V plus autogenous tissue. Indeed, allogenic grafts
(BCT, HF-DDS) resultet in better color and texture match to surrounding tissue compared to
free gingival grafts harvested from the palate. For soft tissue volume augmentation only
limited data are available. For localized alveolar defects subepithelial connective tissue grafts
(SCTGs) provided greater volume gain than full-thickness gingival grafts. However, the
evidence is rather weak, since only one comparative cohort study has been published.
Research is needed to investigate current techniques and substitutes in randomized controlled
clinical trials including patient-reported outcome measures and esthetics. Future studies
should be conducted to provide long-term data of at least 12 months of observation period.
Non-invasive standardized methods to characterize the tissue type and to measure gain, loss,
and changes of grafted areas concerning extension, volume and esthetics have to be
established and validated. Future research in soft tissue regeneration should be directed
towards reduction of morbidity, increased reliability and, elimination of autogenous tissue.
Tissue-engineering might be a possibility to improve current techniques and offer new options
in this field.
19
Conflict of interest and source of funding statement
This review has been funded by the Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and
Dental Material Science, University of Zurich. No conflict of interest is reported for this
article.
20
References
Ackermann, K.L., Tetsch, P. & Baum, P. (1980) [study results of different vestibuloplasty
methods]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 35: 1027-1030.
Adell, R., Lekholm, U., Rockler, B., Branemark, P.I., Lindhe, J., Eriksson, B. & Sbordone, L.
(1986) Marginal tissue reactions at osseointegrated titanium fixtures (i). A 3-year longitudinal
prospective study. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 15: 39-52.
Aichelmann-Reidy, M.E., Yukna, R.A., Evans, G.H., Nasr, H.F. & Mayer, E.T. (2001)
Clinical evaluation of acellular allograft dermis for the treatment of human gingival recession.
Journal of Periodontology 72: 998-1005.
Allen, E.P., Gainza, C.S., Farthing, G.G. & Newbold, D.A. (1985) Improved technique for
localized ridge augmentation. A report of 21 cases. Journal of Periodontology 56: 195-199.
Araujo, M., Linder, E. & Lindhe, J. (2009) Effect of a xenograft on early bone formation in
extraction sockets: An experimental study in dog. Clinical Oral Implants Research 20: 1-6.
Al-Mahdy Al-Belasy, F. (1997) Mandibular anterior ridge extension: A modification of the
kazanjian vestibuloplasty technique. The Internation Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery 55: 1057-1059; discussion 1060.
Artzi, Z., Tal, H., Moses, O. & Kozlovsky, A. (1993) Mucosal considerations for
osseointegrated implants. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 70: 427-432.
Bachmann, A. & Bernimoulin, J.P. (1980) [free grafts of attached and papillary gingiva]. SSO
Schweizerische Monatsschrift für Zahnheilkunde 90: 374-380.
Batista, E.L., Jr., Batista, F.C. & Novaes, A.B., Jr. (2001) Management of soft tissue ridge
deformities with acellular dermal matrix. Clinical approach and outcome after 6 months of
treatment. Journal of Periodontology 72: 265-273.
Cairo, F., Pagliaro, U. & Nieri, M. (2008) Soft tissue management at implant sites. Journal of
Clinical Periodontology 35: 163-167.
Carnio, J. & Miller, P.D., Jr. (1999) Increasing the amount of attached gingiva using a
modified apically repositioned flap. Journal of Periodontology 70: 1110-1117.
de Almeida, A.L., Pedro, P.F., Kogawa, E.M., Pereira, T., de Barros Carrilho, G.P., Aiello,
C.A. & Freitas, P.Z. (2005) Comparative evaluation of two different vestibuloplasty surgical
procedures in cleft patients: A pilot study. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 42: 439-441.
21
de Trey, E. & Bernimoulin, J.P. (1980) Influence of free gingival grafts on the health of the
marginal gingiva. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 7: 381-393.
Del Pizzo, M., Modica, F., Bethaz, N., Priotto, P. & Romagnoli, R. (2002) The connective
tissue graft: A comparative clinical evaluation of wound healing at the palatal donor site. A
preliminary study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 29: 848-854.
Diedrich, P., Jacoby, L. & Aka, F. (1972) [studies on the width of the gingiva proper after
vestibuloplasty with and without periostal fenestration]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift
27: 346-352.
Dordick, B., Coslet, J.G. & Seibert, J.S. (1976) Clinical evaluation of free autogenous
gengival grafts placed on alveolar bone. Part i. Clinical predictability. Journal of
Periodontology 47: 559-567.
Dordick, B., Coslet, J.G. & Seibert, J.S. (1976) Clinical evaluation of free autogenous
gingival grafts placed on alveolar bone. Part ii. Coverage of nonpathologic dehiscences and
fenestrations. Journal of Periodontology 47: 568-573.
Dorfman, H.S., Kennedy, J.E. & Bird, W.C. (1980) Longitudinal evaluation of free
autogenous gingival grafts. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 7: 316-324.
Dorfman, H.S., Kennedy, J.E. & Bird, W.C. (1982) Longitudinal evaluation of free
autogenous gingival grafts. A four year report. Journal of Periodontology 53: 349-352.
Dreeskamp, E.U., de Jacoby, L.F. & Mutschelknauss, R. (1973) [comparative histological
studies of the mucogingival border following vestibuloplasty with and without periosteum
fenestration]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 28: 214-218.
Edel, A. (1974) Clinical evaluation of free connective tissue grafts used to increase the width
of keratinised gingiva. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1: 185-196.
Esposito, M., Grusovin, M.G., Maghaireh, H., Coulthard, P. & Worthington, H.V. (2007)
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Management of soft tissues for dental implants.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: CD006697.
Fagan, F. & Freeman, E. (1974) Clinical comparison of the free gingival graft and partial
thickness apically positioned flap. Journal of Periodontology 45: 3-8.
Fagan, F. (1975) Clinical comparison of the free soft tissue autograft and partial thickness
apically positioned flap--preoperative gingival or mucosal margins. Journal of
Periodontology 46: 586-595.
22
Farnoush, A. (1978) Techniques for the protection and coverage of the donor sites in free soft
tissue grafts. Journal of Periodontology 49: 403-405.
Fickl, S., Schneider, D., Zuhr, O., Hinze, M., Ender, A., Jung, R.E. & Huerzeler, M. (2009)
Dimensional changes of the ridge contour after socket preservation and buccal overbuilding -
an animal study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology.
Flores de Jacoby, L., Neubert, R. & Mutschelknauss, R. (1976) [Comparative cytological
study of the mucosa in Edlan and Mejchar mucosal flap]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift
31: 443-446.
Friedman, A. (1962) Mucogingival surgery: The apically repositioned flap. Journal of
Periodontology 33: 328-340.
Fröschl, T. & Kerscher, A. (1997) The optimal vestibuloplasty in preprosthetic surgery of the
mandible. Journal of Cranio-maxillo-facial Surgery 25: 85-90.
Gher, M.E., Jr., Williams, J.E., Jr., Vernino, A.R., Strong, D.M. & Pelleu, G.B., Jr. (1980)
Evaluation of the immunogenicity of freeze-dried skin allografts in humans. Journal of
Periodontology 51: 571-577.
Griffin, T.J., Cheung, W.S., Zavras, A.I. & Damoulis, P.D. (2006) Postoperative
complications following gingival augmentation procedures. Journal of Periodontology 77:
2070-2079.
Haase, S., Petzel, J.R. & Kreidler, J. (1980) [late results following maxillary vestibuloplasty].
Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 35: 1025-1026.
Hangorsky, U. & Bissada, N.F. (1980) Clinical assessment of free gingival graft effectiveness
on the maintenance of periodontal health. Journal of Periodontology 51: 274-278.
Härle, F. (1987) Lowering of the floor of the mouth: Open or closed? Journal of Cranio-
maxillo-facial Surgery 15: 258-260.
Harris, R.J. (2001) Clinical evaluation of 3 techniques to augment keratinized tissue without
root coverage. Journal of Periodontology 72: 932-938.
Harris, R.J. (2003) Soft tissue ridge augmentation with an acellular dermal matrix. The
International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 23: 87-92.
Heberer, S., Al-Chawaf, B., Hildebrand, D., Nelson, J.J. & Nelson, K. (2008)
Histomorphometric analysis of extraction sockets augmented with bio-oss collagen after a 6-
week healing period: A prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19: 1219-1225.
23
Higgins, J.P. & Thompson, S.G. (2001) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
Statistics in Medicine 21:1539-1558.
James, W.C. & McFall, W.T. Jr. (1978) Placement of free gingival grafts on denuded alveolar
bone. Part I: clinical evaluations. Journal of Periodontology 49: 283-290.
Jung, R.E., Siegenthaler, D.W. & Hammerle, C.H. (2004) Postextraction tissue management:
A soft tissue punch technique. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative
Dentistry 24: 545-553.
Kennedy, J.E., Bird, W.C., Palcanis, K.G. & Dorfman, H.S. (1985) A longitudinal evaluation
of varying widths of attached gingiva. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 12: 667-675.
Koga, Y., Komuro, Y., Yamato, M., Sueyoshi, N., Kojima, Y., Okano, T. & Yanai, A. (2007)
Recovery course of full-thickness skin defects with exposed bone: An evaluation by a
quantitative examination of new blood vessels. The Journal of Surgical Research 137: 30-37.
Krekeler, G., Fabinger, A. & Vogel, D. (1980) [vestibuloplasty in young patients--a
periodontal prophylactic measure]. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Stomatologie 77: 169-174.
Lang, N.P. & Löe, H. (1972) The relationship between the width of keratinized gingiva and
gingival health. Journal of Periodontology 43: 623-627.
Lange, D.E. & Flores de Jacoby, L. (1976) [results of various technics for the widening of the
vestibulum]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 31: 371-376.
Lange, D.E., Plagmann, H.C. & Spickenheier, H. (1981) [experimental study of 2
modifications of the edlan-mejchar operation in a unilateral comparison]. Deutsche
Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 36: 458-460.
Langer, B. (1996) The regeneration of soft tissue and bone around implants with and without
membranes. The Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 17: 268-270, 272 passim;
quiz 280.
Langer, R. & Vacanti, J.P. (1993) Tissue engineering. Science 260: 920-926.
Lauer, G. & Schimming, R. (2001) Tissue-engineered mucosa graft for reconstruction of the
intraoral lining after freeing of the tongue: A clinical and immunohistologic study. The
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 59: 169-175; discussion 175-167.
Lauer, G., Schwarz, U. & Schilli, W. (1996) Transalveolar fixation of the peri-implant soft
tissue in the mandible: Surgical method and clinical follow-up. The International Journal of
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 54: 690-697.
24
Löst, C. (1980) [creeping attachment after free autologous gingival transplants: 2 different
surgical technics in a unilateral comparison]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 35: 540-547.
Luczyszyn, S.M., Papalexiou, V., Novaes, A.B., Jr., Grisi, M.F., Souza, S.L. & Taba, M., Jr.
(2005) Acellular dermal matrix and hydroxyapatite in prevention of ridge deformities after
tooth extraction. Implant Dentistry 14: 176-184.
Marxer, M.A., Rateitschak, K.H. & Hefti, A. (1982) [free mucosal transplant: The edlan-
mejchar operation. A comparison]. SSO Schweizerische Monatsschrift für Zahnheilkunde 92:
75-82.
Matthiessen, J. & Diedrich, P. (1974) [the width of the attached gingiva following
vestibuloplasty depending on the degree of vestibular depth]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche
Zeitschrift 29: 487-491.
McGuire, M.K. & Nunn, M.E. (2005) Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of periodontal
applications of a living tissue-engineered human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute. I.
Comparison to the gingival autograft: A randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of
Periodontology 76: 867-880.
McGuire, M.K., Scheyer, E.T., Nunn, M.E. & Lavin, P.T. (2008) A pilot study to evaluate a
tissue engineered bi-layered cell therapy as an alternative to tissue from the palate. Journal of
Periodontology 79: 1847-1856.
Mercier, P., Huang, H., Cholewa, J. & Djokovic, S. (1992) A comparative study of the
efficacy and morbidity of five techniques for ridge augmentation of the mandible. The
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 50: 210-217.
Mohammadi, M., Shokrgozar, M.A. & Mofid, R. (2007) Culture of human gingival
fibroblasts on a biodegradable scaffold and evaluation of its effect on attached gingiva: A
randomized, controlled pilot study. Journal of Periodontology 78: 1897-1903.
Möller, J.F. & Jolst, O. (1972) A histologic follow-up study of free autogenous skin grafts to
the alveolar ridge in humans. International Journal of Oral Surgery 1: 283-289.
Mörmann, W., Schaer, F. & Firestone, A.R. (1981) The relationship between success of free
gingival grafts and transplant thickness. Revascularization and shrinkage--a one year clinical
study. Journal of Periodontology 52: 74-80.
25
Mörmann, W.H. & Brandestini, M. (1996) The fundamental inventive principles of cerec
cad/cim and other cad/cam methods: In: Mörmann, w.H., ed. CAD/CAM in Aesthetic
Dentistry. Cerec 10 year anniversary symposium, 81-110. Chicago: Quintessence.
Nabers, J.M. (1966) Free gingival grafts. Periodontics 4: 243-245.
Obwegeser, H. (1967) [further experiences with rebuilding of alveolar ridges]. SSO
Schweizerische Monatsschrift für Zahnheilkunde 77: 1002-1012.
Orsini, M., Orsini, G., Benlloch, D., Aranda, J.J., Lazaro, P. & Sanz, M. (2004) Esthetic and
dimensional evaluation of free connective tissue grafts in prosthetically treated patients: A 1-
year clinical study. Journal of Periodontology 75: 470-477.
Ouhayoun, J.P., Holzman, S., Etienne, D., Pierre, C. & Forest, N. (1983) Freeze-dried skin
allografts. A human clinical and histological study. Journal of Periodontology 54: 463-469.
Pöllmann, L. & Scherer, W. (1983) [gingival vestibular enlargement using free mucosal
transplants]. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Stomatologie 80: 112-116.
Prato, G.P., Cairo, F., Tinti, C., Cortellini, P., Muzzi, L. & Mancini, E.A. (2004) Prevention
of alveolar ridge deformities and reconstruction of lost anatomy: A review of surgical
approaches. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry 24: 434-445.
Raghoebar, G.M., Tomson, A.M., Scholma, J., Blaauw, E.H., Witjes, M.J. & Vissink, A.
(1995) Use of cultured mucosal grafts to cover defects caused by vestibuloplasty: An in vivo
study. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 53: 872-878; discussion
878-879.
Richter, M., de Jacoby, L.F. & Mutschelknauss, R. (1973) [comparative clinical studies
following vestibuloplasty with and without suture fixation]. Deutsche Zahnärztliche
Zeitschrift 28: 206-212.
Rozencweig, D. (1976) [use of lyophilized dura mater grafts and an adhesive medication in
mucogingival surgery]. Dental Cadmos 44: 39-50.
Sbordone, L., Ramaglia, L., Spagnuolo, G. & De Luca, M. (1988) A comparative study of
free gingival and subepithelial connective tissue grafts. Periodontal Case Reports 10: 8-12.
Schneider, W. (2003) Cerec 3d--a new dimension in treatment. International Journal of
Computerized Dentistry 6: 57-66.
Schoo, W.H. & Coppes, L. (1976) Use of palatal mucosa and lyophilized dura mater to create
attached gingiva. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 3: 166-172.
26
Schramm-Scherer, B. & Linder, S. (1987) [vestibuloplasty with lingually pedicled mucosa
flaps. First results of a prospective study]. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Mund-, Kiefer- und
Gesichts-Chirurgie 11: 240-246.
Seibert, J.S. (1983) Reconstruction of deformed, partially edentulous ridges, using full
thickness onlay grafts. Part i. Technique and wound healing. The Compendium of Continuing
Education in Dentistry 4: 437-453.
Sezer, B., Selcuk, E., Erturk, S. & Gomel, M. (2004) Comparison of autogenous mucosal
grafts and collagen-based, solvent-preserved allografts for vestibuloplasty. Quintessence
International 35: 234-239.
Shulman, J., (1996) Clinical evaluation of an acellular dermal allograft for increasing the zone
of attached gingiva. Practical Periodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry 8: 201-208.
Soileau, K.M. & Brannon, R.B. (2006) A histologic evaluation of various stages of palatal
healing following subepithelial connective tissue grafting procedures: A comparison of eight
cases. Journal of Periodontology 77: 1267-1273.
Strebel, J., Ender, A., Paqué, F., Krähenmann, M., Attin, T. & Schmidlin, P.R. (2009) In vivo
validation of a three-dimensional optical method to document volumetric soft tissue changes
of the interdental papilla. Journal of Periodontology 80: 56-61.
Studer, S.P., Lehner, C., Bucher, A. & Scharer, P. (2000) Soft tissue correction of a single-
tooth pontic space: A comparative quantitative volume assessment. Journal of Prosthetetic
Dentistry 83: 402-411.
Sullivan, H.C. & Atkins, J.H. (1969) The role of free gingival grafts in periodontal therapy.
Dental Clinics of North America 13: 133-148.
Wainwright, D.J. (1995) Use of an acellular allograft dermal matrix (alloderm) in the
management of full-thickness burns. Burns 21: 243-248.
Wei, P.C., Laurell, L., Geivelis, M., Lingen, M.W. & Maddalozzo, D. (2000) Acellular
dermal matrix allografts to achieve increased attached gingiva. Part 1. A clinical study.
Journal of Periodontology 71: 1297-1305.
Wei, P.C., Laurell, L., Lingen, M.W. & Geivelis, M. (2002) Acellular dermal matrix
allografts to achieve increased attached gingiva. Part 2. A histological comparative study.
Journal of Periodontology 73: 257-265.
27
28
Wessel, J.R. & Tatakis, D.N. (2008) Patient outcomes following subepithelial connective
tissue graft and free gingival graft procedures. Journal of Periodontology 79: 425-430.
Windisch, S.I., Jung, R.E., Sailer, I., Studer, S.P., Ender, A. & Hammerle, C.H. (2007) A new
optical method to evaluate three-dimensional volume changes of alveolar contours: A
methodological in vitro study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18: 545-551.
Yukna, R.A. & Sullivan, W.M. (1978) Evaluation of resultant tissue type following the
intraoral transplantation of various lyophilized soft tissues. Journal of Periodontal Research
13: 177-184.
Yukna, R.A., Tow, H.D., Caroll, P.B., Vernino, A.R. & Bright, R.W. (1977) Comparative
clinical evaluation of freeze-dried skin allografts and autogenous gingival grafts in humans.
Journal of Clinical Periodontology 4: 191-199.
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of analyzed parameters at dento-gingival unit.
Zur Anzeige wird der QuickTime™ Dekompressor „“
benötigt.keratinized tissue
free gingiva / periodontal probing depth
attached gingiva
margo gingivae
muco-gingival junction
cemento-enamel junction
first electronic search: 1471 titles
Figure 2. Search strategy.
independently selected by 2 reviewers and agreed by both: 115 titles
abstracts obtained
independently selected by 2 reviewers and agreed by both: 58 abstracts
full text obtained
keratinized tissue: 48
final number of studies included keratinized tissue: 25
further handsearching 7 articles (references of full text articles)
inter-reader agreement k = 0.82 ± 0.02
review: 6
excluded: 30
inter-reader agreement k = 0.81 ± 0.05
soft tissue volume: 4
excluded: 1
final number of studies included soft tissue volume: 3
Figure 3 A to E. Meta-analyses of mean gain in width of keratinized tissue. Mean difference (mm) for test minus control.
.
.
.
.
.
A
Hangorsky & Bissada
Dorfman et al.
Dorfman et al.
Kennedy et al
Subtotal (I-squared = 96.6%, p = 0.000)
B
Edel
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
C
Mohammadi et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
D
Harris
Harris
McGuire & Nunn
McGuire et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = 94.6%, p = 0.000)
E
Gher et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
author
1980
1980
1982
1984
1974
2007
2001
2001
2005
2008
1980
year_of_publication
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
level4_act
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
vestibuloplasty
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
level4_co1
1.99 (1.29, 2.69)
4.58 (4.54, 4.62)
4.90 (4.80, 5.00)
4.60 (4.55, 4.65)
4.49 (4.28, 4.71)
0.34 (-0.45, 1.13)
0.34 (-0.45, 1.13)
0.70 (-0.14, 1.54)
0.70 (-0.14, 1.54)
-0.10 (-1.24, 1.04)
0.70 (-0.39, 1.79)
-1.19 (-1.46, -0.92)
-2.06 (-2.24, -1.88)
-0.85 (-1.71, 0.01)
1.22 (0.71, 1.73)
1.22 (0.71, 1.73)
difference (95% CI)
mean
1.99 (1.29, 2.69)
4.58 (4.54, 4.62)
4.90 (4.80, 5.00)
4.60 (4.55, 4.65)
4.49 (4.28, 4.71)
0.34 (-0.45, 1.13)
0.34 (-0.45, 1.13)
0.70 (-0.14, 1.54)
0.70 (-0.14, 1.54)
-0.10 (-1.24, 1.04)
0.70 (-0.39, 1.79)
-1.19 (-1.46, -0.92)
-2.06 (-2.24, -1.88)
-0.85 (-1.71, 0.01)
1.22 (0.71, 1.73)
1.22 (0.71, 1.73)
difference (95% CI)
mean
favors control group favors test/active group
0-4 -2 0 2 4
Abbreviations: APF = apically positioned flap. CI = confidence interval.
A: I-squared (percentage variation attributable to heterogeneity) = 96.6%; test for overall effect: z = 41.37, p = 0.000. B: significance test: z = 0.84, p = 0.401. C: significance test: z = 1.64, p = 0.101. D: I-squared = 94.6%; test for overall effect: z = 1.95, p = 0.052. E: significance test: z = 4.69, p = 0.000.
Figure 4. Meta-analysis of percentage shrinkage of keratinized tissue. Mean difference (%) for test minus control.
Overall (I-squared = 95.1%, p = 0.000)
McGuire & Nunn
Wei et al.
author
2005
2000
year_of_publication
HF-DDS
ADMG
graft_1
FGG
FGG
control_1
28.41 (23.56, 33 26)
23.70 (18.44, 28 96)
55.00 (42.50, 67 50)
difference (95% CI)
mean
28.41 (23.56, 33.26)
23.70 (18.44, 28.96)
55.00 (42.50, 67.50)
difference (95% CI)
mean
favors test/active group favors control group 0-10 0 20 40 60 80 100
Abbrevations: CI = confidence interval; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix allograft; FGG = free gingival graft; HF-DDS = human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute. I-squared (percentage variation attributable to heterogeneity) = 95.1%; test for overall effect: z = 11.49, p = 0.000.
Figure 5 A to E. Meta-analyses of width of attached gingiva at end of study. Mean difference (mm) for test minus control.
.
.
.
.
.
A
Hangorsky & Bissada
de Trey & Bernimoulin
Dorfman et al.
Dorfman et al.
Kennedy et al
Subtotal (I-squared = 98.4%, p = 0.000)
B
Fagan & Freeman
Fagan
Fagan
Subtotal (I-squared = 78.4%, p = 0.010)
C
Mohammadi et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
D
McGuire et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
E
Gher et al.
Subtotal (I-squared = .%, p = .)
author
1980
1980
1980
1982
1984
1974
1975
1975
2007
2008
1980
year_of_publication
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
level4_act
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
no treatment/scaling and root planing
vestibuloplasty
vestibuloplasty
vestibuloplasty
vestibuloplasty
APF/vestibuloplasty plus autogenous tissue
APF/vestibuloplasty plus allogenic graft
level4_co1
1.82 (1.11, 2.53)
3.29 (3.13, 3.45)
4.35 (4.30, 4.40)
4.50 (4.40, 4.60)
4.50 (4.45, 4.55)
3.94 (3.64, 4.23)
0.82 (0.61, 1.03)
1.26 (0.89, 1.63)
0.37 (-0.08, 0.82)
0.83 (0.42, 1.25)
0.70 (-0.10, 1.50)
0.70 (-0.10, 1.50)
-1.52 (-1.73, -1.31)
-1.52 (-1.73, -1.31)
1.17 (0.61, 1.73)
1.17 (0.61, 1.73)
difference (95% CI)
mean
1.82 (1.11, 2.53)
3.29 (3.13, 3.45)
4.35 (4.30, 4.40)
4.50 (4.40, 4.60)
4.50 (4.45, 4.55)
3.94 (3.64, 4.23)
0.82 (0.61, 1.03)
1.26 (0.89, 1.63)
0.37 (-0.08, 0.82)
0.83 (0.42, 1.25)
0.70 (-0.10, 1.50)
0.70 (-0.10, 1.50)
-1.52 (-1.73, -1.31)
-1.52 (-1.73, -1.31)
1.17 (0.61, 1.73)
1.17 (0.61, 1.73)
difference (95% CI)
mean
favors control group favors test/active group
0-2 0 2 4
Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; APF = apically positioned flap.
A: I-squared (percentage variation attributable to heterogeneity) = 98.4%; test for overall effect: z = 25.83, p = 0.000. B: I-squared = 78.4%; test for overall effect: z = 3.91, p = 0.000. C: significance test: z = 1.72, p = 0.085. D: significance test: z = 14.33, p = 0.000. E: significance test: z = 4.08, p = 0.000.
Table 1: Abbreviations used in text, figures and tables. ADMG Acellular dermal matrix graft APF Apically positioned flap APF/V Apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty BCT Bilayered cell therapy CCT Controlled clinical trial CI Confidence interval FGG Free gingival graft HA Hydroxylapatite bone substitute HF-DDS Human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute NA Not applicable RCT Randomized controlled clinical trial SCTG Subepithelial connective tissue graft SD Standard deviation TEMG Tissue-engineered mucosal graft WMD Weighted mean differences
Table 2: Excluded studies.
author year reason for exclusion Obwegeser 1967 description of technique Möller & Jölst 1972 only descriptive histology Dreeskamp et al. 1973 no reported data on keratinized tissue Dordick et al. 1976 no reported data on width of keratinized tissue Flores de Jacoby & Mutschelknauss 1978 no control group Rozencweig 1976 insufficient follow-up data; follow-up two months only Yukna et al. 1977 insufficient number of patients (4) Ackermann et al. 1980 fully edentulous patients Bachmann & Bernimoulin 1980 no control group Haase et al. 1980 retrospective study Krekeler et al. 1980 no control group Löst 1980 no data on keratinized tissue Ouhayoun et al. 1983 no measurements for control group; only descriptive histology Härle 1987 no data on keratinized tissue Schramm-Scherer & Linder 1987 no reported outcomes on width of keratinized tissue Sbordone et al. 1988 root coverage procedure Mercier et al. 1992 no control group; no data on keratinized tissue Raghoebar et al. 1995 only descriptive histology Lauer et al. 1996 simulataneously with implant placement Shulman 1996 follow-up only six weeks; no control group Al-Mahdy Al-Belasy 1997 no control group Fröschl & Kerscher 1997 fully edentulous patients Carnio & Miller 1999 no control group Lauer & Schimming 2001 no control group; only descriptive data Wei et al. 2002 only descriptive histology Orsini et al. 2004 no measurements for control group Sezer et al. 2004 fully edentulous patients de Almeida et al. 2005 no reported treatment outcomes on width of keratinized tissue, volume or patient-centered outcomes Luczyszyn et al. 2005 control group does not use soft tissue augmentation Griffin et al. 2006 no data on keratinized tissue Wessel & Tatakis 2008 no reported outcomes on width of keratinized tissue
Table 3: Included studies part 1: augmentation of keratinized tissue
author year of
publication study design
test treatment control 1 treatment
control 2 treatment
control 3 treatment
follow-up
period (weeks)
total number
of patients
total number of sites
number of sites
test group
number of sites control
1 group
number of sites control
2 group
number of sites control
3 group
Diedrich et al. 1972 CCT
vestibuloplasty with releasing incision vestibuloplasty 17 15 30 15 15
Richter et al. 1973 CCT
vestibuloplasty without suturing vestibuloplasty 35 12 24 12 12
Edel 1974 Cohort Study
APF plus SCTG (method 1)
APF plus SCTG (method 2)
APF plus SCTG (method 3) 26 8 14 6 6 2
Fagan & Freeman 1974 CCT APF plus FGG APF 12 10 22 10 12
Matthiessen & Diedrich 1974 CCT
vestibuloplasty extended into horizontal part of ridge vestibuloplasty 17 10 20 10 10
Fagan 1975 CCT APF plus FGG APF 12 5 10 5 5
Dordick et al. 1976 RCT
APF with releasing incision plus FGG APF plus FGG 26 60 30 30
Lange & Flores de Jacoby 1976 CCT
vestibuloplasty with releasing incision vestibuloplasty 208 8 16 8 8
Schoo & Coppes 1976
Cohort Study
APF plus lyoph. dura mater APF plus FGG 104 58 84 16 68
James & McFall 1978 CCT
vestibuloplasty/APF with releasing incision plus FGG
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG 12 14 28 14 14
de Trey & Bernimoulin 1980 CCT APF plus FGG no treatment 14 12 24 12 12
Dorfmann et al. 1980 RCT APF plus FGG no treatment 104 92 184 92 92
Gher et al. 1980 Cohort Study
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS with fenestration
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS without fenestration 12 31 148 76 72
Hangorsky & Bissada 1980 CCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG no treatment 52-416 34 80 40 40
Lange et al. 1981 CCT
vestibuloplasty according to Schmid & Mörmann
vestibuloplasty according to Plagmann 26 15 30 15 15
Mörmann et al. 1981 CCT
APF plus FGG (scalpel)
APF plus FGG (mucotom very thin)
APF plus FGG (mucotom thin)
APF plus FGG (mucotom intermediate) 52 34 89 19 11 29 30
Dorfmann et al. 1982 RCT APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing 208 21 42 21 21
Marxer et al. 1982 RCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
vestibuloplasty according to Edlan & Mejchar 52 16 80 40 40
Pöllmann & Scherer 1983
Cohort Study
vestibuloplasty/APF plus lyophylised dura mater vestibuloplasty
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG 26 45 45 25 9 11
Kennedy et al. 1985 RCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing 312 32 64 32 32
Wei et al. 2000 RCT APF plus ADMG APF plus FGG 26 12 12 6 6
Harris 2001 RCT vestibuloplasty/APF plus ADMG
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
vestibuloplasty/APF plus SCTG 13 45 45 15 15 15
McGuire & Nunn 2005 RCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus HF-DDS
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG 52 22 44 22 22
Mohammadi et al. 2007 RCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus TEMG vestibuloplasty/APF 13 9 18 9 9
McGuire et al. 2008 RCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus BCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG 26 25 50 25 25
CCT = controlled clinical trial; RCT = randomized controlled clinical trial; APF = apically positioned flap; SCTG = subepithelial connective tissue graft; FGG = free gingival graft; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; FDS = freeze-dried skin allograft; HF-DDS = human fibroblast - derived dermal substitute; TEMG = tissue-engineered mucosal graft; BCT = bilayered cell therapy
Table 4: Included studies part 2: augmentation of soft tissue volume
author year of
publication study design
test treatment
control 1 treatment
control 2 treatment
follow-up period
(weeks)
total number
of patients
total number of
sites
number of patients
test group
number of patients control 1
group
number of patients control 2
group
Allen et al. 1985 Cohort study SCTG HA 24 21 26 14 12
Studer et al. 2000 Cohort study SCTG FGG no treatment 14 30 30 12 12 6
Batista et al. 2001 Case series ADMG 27 8 18 18
SCTG = subepithelial connective tissue graft; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; HA = hydroxylapatite bone substitute; FGG = free gingival graft
Table 5: Characteristics of included studies: width of keratinized tissue
author year of
publication study design
total number
of patients
total number
of sites
number of
patients test
number of
sites test
number of
patients control
1
number of
sites contol
1
number of
patients control
2
number of
sites control2
follow-up
period (weeks) test treatment
control 1 treatment
control 2 treatment
Diedrich et al. 1972 CCT 15 30 15 15 15 15 17
vestibuloplasty with releasing incision vestibuloplasty
Edel 1974 Cohort study 8 14 6 6 2 26
APF plus SCTG (method 1)
APF plus SCTG (method 2)
APF plus SCTG (method 3)
Dorfman et al. 1980 RCT 92 184 92 92 92 92 104 APF plus FGG no treatment
Gher et al. 1980 Cohort study 31 148 76 72 8
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS with fenestration
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS without fenestration
Hangorsky & Bissada 1980 CCT 34 40 34 40 34 40 52-416
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG no treatment
Lange et al. 1981 CCT 15 30 15 15 15 15 26
vestibuloplasty according to Schmid & Mörmann
vestibuloplasty according to Plagmann
Dorfman et al. 1982 RCT 21 42 21 21 21 21 208 APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing
Kennedy et al. 1985 RCT 32 64 32 32 32 32 312
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing
Harris 2001 RCT 45 45 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 vestibuloplasty/APF plus ADMG
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
vestibuloplasty/APF plus SCTG
McGuire & Nunn 2005 RCT 22 44 22 22 22 22 52
vestibuloplasty/APF plus HF-DDS
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
Mohammadi et al. 2007 RCT 9 18 9 9 9 9 13
vestibuloplasty/APF plus TEMG vestibuloplasty/APF
McGuire et al. 2008 RCT 25 50 25 25 25 25 26
vestibuloplasty/APF plus BCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
CCT = controlled clinical trial; RCT = randomized controlled clinical trial; APF = apically positioned flap; SCTG = subepithelial connective tissue graft; FGG = free gingival graft; FDS = freeze-dried skin allograft; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; HF-DDS = human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute; TEMG = tissue-engineered mucosal graft; BCT = bilayered cell therapy.
author treatment indication
outcome measure
baseline test SD
post-surgery
test SD change
test
change test SD
baseline control
1 SD
post-surgery control
1 SD
change control
1
change control
SD
Diedrich et al. vestibuloplasty
keratinized tissue (mm) 3.5 5.6 2.1 3.8 5.6 1.8
Edel
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.33 0.24 4.42 0.67 1.58 0.34 4.08 0.73
Dorfman et al.
inadequate width of attached gingiva
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.62 0.09 6.24 0.19 1.59 0.07 1.66 0.1
Gher et al.
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 2.13 1.2 6.3 1.67 1.76 1.27 5.08 1.49
Hangorsky & Bissada
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 4.9 1.67 2.91 1.51
Lange et al. vestibuloplasty
keratinized tissue (mm) 23.6 26.7
Dorfman et al.
inadequate width of attached gingiva
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.5 0.11 6.5 0.22 1.5 0.09 1.6 0.08
Kennedy et al.
inadequate width of AG
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.3 0.1 6.2 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.1
Harris
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 0.6 0.87 4.7 1.92 4.1 1.79 0.8 0.59 4.8 1.16 4.1 1.25
McGuire & Nunn
lack of keratinized gingiva
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.46 0.91 2.72 0.45 1.34 0.97 3.91 0.45
Mohammadi et al.
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.3 0.4 4.1 1 1.5 0.4 3.4 0.8
McGuire et al.
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
keratinized tissue (mm) 1.07 0.18 2.4 0.32 1.33 0.38 1.17 0.18 4.46 0.32 3.29 0.38
author
baseline control
2 SD
post-surgery control
2 SD
change control
2
effect of device vs. control 1
effect of device
vs. control 2
effect of control 1
vs. control 2 comments
Diedrich et al.
no difference
Edel 1.5 0 3.5 0 significant
statistics pre- to postoperative
Dorfman et al. significant
statistics postoperative
Gher et al. significant 8-week results
Hangorsky & Bissada significant
Lange et al.
Dorfman et al. significant
statistics postoperative
Kennedy et al. significant
Harris 0.4 0.47 4 0.99 3.6 not significant
not significant
not significant
statistics for change
McGuire & Nunn significant
statistics postoperative
Mohammadi et al. significant
statistics postoperative
McGuire et al.
signisficant negative
Table 6: Characteristics of included studies: shrinkage of keratinized tissue
author year of
publication study design
total number
of patients
total number of sites
number of
patients test
number of sites
test
number of
patients control
number of sites control
follow-up
period (weeks)
test treat-ment
control treat-ment
treat-ment
indication outcome measure
outcome test
SD test
outcome control
SD control
effect device
vs. control
Wei et al. 2000 RCT 12 12 6 6 6 6 26 ADMG FGG
keratinized gingiva <1mm
percentage shrinkage of keratinized tissue (%) 71 10 16 12 significant
McGuire & Nunn 2005 RCT 22 44 22 22 22 22 52
HF-DDS FGG
lack of keratinized gingiva
percentage shrinkage of keratinized tissue (%) 45.5 8.9 21.8 8.9 significant
RCT = randomized controlled clinical trial; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; HF-DDS = human fibroblast - derived dermal substitute; FGG = free gingival graft; SD = standard deviation.; vs. = versus.
Table 7: Characteristics of included studies: width of attached gingiva
author year of
publication study design
total number
of patients
total number
of sites
number of
patients test
number of
sites test
number of
patients control
number of
sites control
follow-up
period (weeks) test treatment
control treatment
treatment indication
outcome measure
Diedrich et al. 1972 CCT 15 30 15 15 15 15 17
vestibuloplasty with releasing incision vestibuloplasty vestibuloplasty
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Richter et al. 1973 CCT 12 24 12 12 12 12 35
vestibuloplasty without suturing vestibuloplasty vestibuloplasty
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Fagan & Freeman 1974 CCT 10 22 10 10 10 12 12 APF plus FGG APF
inadequate width of attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Matthiessen & Diedrich 1974 CCT 10 20 10 10 10 10 17
vestibuloplasty extended into horizontal part of ridge vestibuloplasty vestibuloplasty
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Fagan 1975 CCT 5 10 5 5 5 5 12 APF plus FGG APF
inadequate width of attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Fagan 1975 CCT 5 10 5 5 5 5 12 APF plus FGG APF no attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Lange & Flores de Jacoby 1976 CCT 8 16 8 8 8 8 208
vestibuloplasty with releasing incision vestibuloplasty vestibuloplasty
width of attached gingiva (mm)
de Trey & Bernimoulin 1980 CCT 12 24 12 12 12 12 14 APF plus FGG no treatment
attached gingiva <1mm
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Dorfman et al. 1980 RCT 92 184 92 92 92 92 104 APF plus FGG no treatment
inadequate width of attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Gher et al. 1980 Cohort study 31 148 76 72 8
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS with fenestration
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FDS without fenestration
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Hangorsky & Bissada 1980 CCT 34 40 34 40 34 40 52-416
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG no treatment
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Dorfman et al. 1982 RCT 21 42 21 21 21 21 208 APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing
inadequate width of attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Kennedy et al 1985 RCT 32 64 32 32 32 32 312
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
scaling and root planing
inadequate width of attached gingiva
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Wei et al. 2000 RCT 12 12 6 6 6 26 APF plus ADMG APF plus FGG attached gingiva <1mm
width of attached gingiva (mm)
Mohammadi et al. 2007 RCT 9 18 9 9 9 9 13
vestibuloplasty/APF plus TEMG vestibuloplasty/APF
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
width of attached gingiva (mm)
McGuire et al. 2008 RCT 25 50 25 25 25 25 26
vestibuloplasty/APF plus BCT
vestibuloplasty/APF plus FGG
inadequate width of keratinized tissue
width of attached gingiva (mm)
CCT = controlled clinical trial; RCT = randomized controlled clinical trial; APF = apically positioned flap; FGG = free gingival graft; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; FDS = freeze-dried skin allograft; TEMG = tissue-engineered mucosal graft; BCT = bilayered cell therapy; SD = standard deviation.; vs. = versus.
author baseline
test SD post-
surgery test SD change
test
change test SD
baseline control SD
post-surgery control SD
change control
change control
SD
effect of device
vs. control 1
effect of
device vs.
control 2 comments
Diedrich et al. 1.3 4.9 3.7 1.6 5 3.4
Richter et al. 1.5 4.3 2.8 1.2 3.8 2.6
Fagan & Freeman 0.11 0.05 4.31 0.26 4.2 0.25 0.4 0.14 3.49 0.24 3.1 0.26
Matthiessen & Diedrich 1.6 5.2 1.6 6
Fagan 0.13 0.08 4.5 0.41 4.37 0.38 0.8 0.25 4.13 0.3 3.33 0.46 not significant
Fagan 0.1 0.02 4.13 0.25 4.06 0.25 0 2.87 0.34 2.87 0.34 significant
Lange & Flores de Jacoby 4 3.5
de Trey & Bernimoulin 0.46 0.08 3.67 0.27 0.74 0.14 0.38 0.11 significant
Dorfman et al. 0.35 0.07 4.71 0.21 0.33 0.05 0.36 0.07 significant
statistics postoperatively
Gher et al. 0.91 0.98 5.18 1.82 0.71 0.97 4.01 1.67 significant
Hangorsky & Bissada 3.53 1.79 1.71 1.42 significant
Dorfman et al. 0.3 0.06 4.8 0.23 0.3 0.07 0.3 0.07 significant
statistics postoperatively
Kennedy et al 0.3 0.1 5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 significant
Wei et al. 0.68 0.26 3.25 0.89 2.59 0.92 0.57 0.41 6.15 0.49 5.57 0.44 significant
Mohammadi et al. 0.2 0.4 3 1 0.3 0.4 2.3 0.7 significant
statistics postoperatively
McGuire et al. 0.26 0.14 1.1 0.38 0.85 0.37 0.24 0.14 2.62 0.37 2.37 0.37 significant
Table 8: Characteristics of the included studies: soft tissue volume
author year of
publication study design
total number
of patients
total number of sites
number of
patients control
1
number of sites control
1
number of
patients control
2
number of sites control
2
number of
patients test
number of sites
test
follow-up
period (weeks)
test treatment
control 1 treatment
control 2 treatment
type of defect
outcome measure
Allen et al. 1985
Cohort study 21 26 12 14 24 SCTG
Hydroxyl-apatite
localized alveolar ridge defect
shrinkage (descriptive)
Studer et al. 2000
Cohort study 30 30 12 12 6 6 12 12 14 SCTG FGG
untreated defect
localized alveolar ridge defect
soft tissue volume (mm3)
Batista et al. 2001
Case series 8 18 8 18 27 ADMG
localized alveolar ridge defect
gain in horizontal ridge width (mm)
Batista et al. 2001
Case series 8 18 8 18 27 ADMG
localized alveolar ridge defect
gain in vertical ridge height (mm)
Batista et al. 2001
Case series 8 18 8 18 27 ADMG
localized alveolar ridge defect
% shrinkage horizontal
SCTG = subepithelial connective tissue graft; ADMG = acellular dermal matrix graft; FGG = free gingival graft; NA = not applicable; SD = standard deviation.; vs. = versus.
author outcome
test SD test
outcome control
1
SD control
1
outcome control
2
SD control
2
effect of test vs.
control 1
effect of test vs.
control 2
effect of control 1
vs. control 2 comments
Allen et al.
14 of 14 sites: shrinkage within first 4-6 weeks, then stable for 3 years
10 of 12 sites: no shrinkage NA
not mentioned how measurements were performed
Studer et al. 159 80 104 31 6 5.4 significant significant significant
Batista et al. 1.72 0.59 NA
Batista et al. 0.61 0.77 NA
Batista et al. 41.4 NA
top related