ArticleCureus2024
Soft Tissue Augmentation After Tooth Extraction Improves Implant Health: Findings From a Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Soft tissue augmentation is a critical procedure in dental implantology aimed at improving peri-implant health and aesthetics. Various materials are used for this purpose, but their comparative effectiveness remains under-researched. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of soft tissue augmentation utilizing two different materials after tooth extraction on peri-implant clinical and radiographic outcomes. Methodology A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 30 participants requiring extraction of non-restorable mandibular posterior teeth. Participants were randomly assigned to receive connective tissue graft (CTG), Fibro-gide (FG), or spontaneous healing (SH) in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Two months post-treatment, dental implants were placed. Six months after the functional loading of the dental implant, peri-implant health was assessed using the Plaque Accumulation Index, bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth, mucosal recession, and marginal bone level. Results At the six-month follow-up, the SH group exhibited significantly higher Plaque Index and BOP percentages (6.43 ± 1.23 and 70%, respectively) compared to the CTG group (0.40 ± 0.32 and 8.3%, respectively) and FG group (0.45 ± 0.44 and 9.7%, respectively). The mean probing pocket depth was also significantly higher in the control group (5.13 ± 0.64 mm), while the CTG and FG groups showed minimal changes (3.83 ± 0.39 mm for both groups). Additionally, gingival recession was higher in the control group (0.65 ± 0.18 mm) compared to the CTG and FG groups (0.03 ± 0.08 mm for both groups). Radiographic analysis revealed greater marginal bone loss in the control group (0.40 ± 0.05 mm) compared to the CTG and FG groups, which demonstrated minimal bone loss (0.17 ± 0.08 mm and 0.20 ± 0.00 mm, respectively). Conclusions The study findings indicate that FG is as effective as CTG in maintaining peri-implant health, outperforming SH. These findings suggest that FG can be a viable alternative to CTG in soft tissue augmentation after tooth extraction, offering a new option for clinicians in the management of extraction sites before dental implant placement.
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.