Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
Connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: a randomized-controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of a Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft and a Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix in Combination with a Coronally Advanced Flap for Gingival Recession Coverage with 12-Month Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of xenogeneic collagen matrix and autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft to increase soft tissue volume around dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Modified vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation around implant in esthetic zone (A comparative Study).BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- 3D-Analysis of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Gain With Collagen Matrix and Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Control Trial.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Trial
- Immunohistological Evaluation of Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Grafting Using a Porcine Dermal Matrix-A Human Histological Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of xenogeneic collagen matrices and autogenous graft-based techniques to increase mucosal thickness and keratinised mucosa width at implant sites: are autologous grafts still the gold standard? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2026Review
- Mandibular Rotated Pediculated Flap: A Technique to Increase Peri-Implant Mucosa Thickness.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Apical Positioned Flap with a Combination of Mucograft and Fibro-Gide for Augmenting Keratinized Gingiva with Thin Gingival Phenotype: A Case Report.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- A Novel Prehydrated Porcine-Derived Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Histological and Clinical Evaluation.International journal of biomaterials · 2024Article
- Transcriptome analysis of human peri-implant soft tissue and periodontal gingiva: a paired design study.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) is to compare xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) versus subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) to increase soft tissue thickness at implant site. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was a randomized, parallel-group controlled investigation. Thirty patients underwent buccal soft tissue thickness augmentation at the stage of implant placement by two different methods: SCTG (control group) and XCM (test group). Primary outcome was the amount of buccal soft tissue thickness gain, 3 months after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were the operation time, the amount of keratinized mucosa (KM), pain syndrome (PS), and patients' quality of life (QL). Histologic evaluation was also performed.
resultsThe amount of soft tissue thickness gain was 1.55±0.11 mm in SCTG group, and 1.18±0.11mm in XCM group. The difference between the SCTG and XCM was -0.366 (-0.66 to -0.07; p=0.016). Operation time with XCM was 8.4 (3.737 to 13.06) min shorter than that with the SCTG (p=0.001). KT, PS, and QL for both groups were not statistically significantly different at any time point (p>0.05). At histological examination, the general picture in both groups was similar. No significant differences between the studied groups in most indices, except for the average and maximum formation thickness, cellularity of the basal, mitotic activity and also maximum length of rete ridges.
conclusionWithin limitations, this study demonstrates that the use of SCTG provides a statistically significant superior soft tissue thickness gain than XCM for soft tissue augmentation procedures around implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: XCM can be used as the method of choice for increasing the thickness of soft tissues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.