Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40105088›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2025

Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Increase at Small Buccal Bone Dehiscences With Either Volume-Stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Francesco Ferrarotti, Giacomo Baima, Giulia Mohammadi, Clelia Carboncini, Federica Romano, Mario Aimetti

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05466006 (Peri-implant Soft Tissue Volume Changes After Treatment of Small Buccal Dehiscence With Volume-stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05466006 naunknown statusnot on this map

Peri-implant Soft Tissue Volume Changes After Treatment of Small Buccal Dehiscence With Volume-stable Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Turin, ItalyRan2022 to 2024Enrolled28ConditionsDental ImplantsArmsSoft tissue augmentation with subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), Soft tissue augmentation with xenogenic volume stable collagen matrix (VCXM)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Francesco FerrarottiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Giacomo BaimaDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9395-4967
Giulia MohammadiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Clelia CarbonciniDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Federica RomanoDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Mario AimettiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, C.I.R. Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0657-0787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis randomized clinical study compared the profilometric measurements of the buccal tissue volume at sites augmented using a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue graft (CTG) simultaneously to implant placement in the presence of small buccal bone dehiscence (SBBD ≤ 3 mm).

methodsForty-four patients with SBBD were treated with soft tissue augmentation (STA) simultaneous to implant placement using VCMX or SCTG. Clinical measurements and 3D intraoral scans were collected prior to STA (BL), at 1, 3 months, and 1 year after prosthetic loading. Digital files were superimposed to compare profilometric volume on the buccal profile (primary outcome); peri-implant health, radiographic bone levels, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were also assessed.

resultsBoth treatments achieved a significant STA at 3 months, with a slight decrease observed from 1 month. At 3 months, the mean increase was 1.07 mm (SD 0.22) for VCMX and 1.22 mm (SD 0.44) for the CTG group (p = 0.156). PROMs revealed a difference in the perception of the bleeding at day 1, pain at 2 and 3 days, and swelling at 3 days favoring VCMX (p < 0.05). At 1 year, no intergroup difference in probing pocket depth, bleeding, and recession was detected, but CTG provided higher stability than VCMX in terms of profilometric measurements (0.21 mm [SD 0.32] vs. -0.05 mm [SD 0.36], respectively; p = 0.014) and radiographic bone levels (0.09 mm [SD 0.65] vs. -0.34 mm [SD 0.70]; p = 0.038).

conclusionFor implant placement at posterior sites with small buccal bone dehiscences, CTG and VCMX resulted in an initially comparable volume augmentation and clinical parameters, with VCMX leading to better PROMs. At 1 year, CTG maintained slightly higher profilometric stability and bone levels.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05466006 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05466006).

Indexed as

Alveolar Bone LossAlveolar Ridge AugmentationCollagenConnective TissueDental Implantation, EndosseousAdultAgedDental ImplantsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeCollagenDental Implantscollagen matrixconnective tissue graftdental implantsestheticspatient‐reported outcomessoft tissue augmentation

Identifiers

PMID40105088
PMCPMC12230890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.