Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: To compare the soft tissue volume gain (VG) around single tooth implants with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) from either the lateral palate (LP) or from the tuberosity area (TA). METHODS: Thirty-two patients with 36 implants with buccal volume deficiencies were randomly assigned to receive SCTG from LP (control group/CG) or TA (test group/TG). Clinical parameters were recorded. VG was evaluated by stereolithography (STL) image superimposition of two intraoral scans (baseline/BL and 3 months after surgery/FU-3). Descriptive analysis was performed for both groups, and for comparisons, Mann-Whitney U test was used. RESULTS: In terms of VG values, no statistically significant differences were observed except for values at 6 and 7 mm apically to the healing abutment which favoured the TG. Mean values were 0.69 ± 0.23 mm for CG while TG obtained 0.79 ± 0.10 mm (p = .64). Regarding Keratinized tissue (KT) width statistical significant differences were found favouring TG, which obtained a gain of 0.83 ± 0.61 mm compared with 0.22 ± 0.48 mm for CG (p = .009). Pink esthetic scores resulted in mean values of 10.07 ± 2.19 for the CG, while TG obtained 9.15 ± 2.34. CONCLUSIONS: Both procedures were effective in increasing soft tissue volume with no statistically significant differences. A longer follow-up is needed to confirm or refute these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rojo et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: