Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Modified vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue graft versus xenogeneic collagen matrix for soft tissue augmentation around implant in esthetic zone (A comparative Study).
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06808243 (Modified Vascularized Interpostional Periosteal Connective Tissue Graft Versus Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix for Soft Tissue Augmentation Around Implant in Esthetic Zone), which is not on this 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.
Modified Vascularized Interpostional Periosteal Connective Tissue Graft Versus Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix for Soft Tissue Augmentation Around Implant in Esthetic Zone (Comparative Study)
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
backgroundImmediate implant placement in the esthetic zone presents challenges in achieving optimal peri-implant soft tissue outcomes. Enhancing keratinized tissue thickness is critical to achieving long-term esthetic stability. The modified vascularized interpositional periosteal connective tissue graft (mVIP-CTG) has been proposed as an autogenous pedicled technique for improving keratinized tissue thickness. Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) represents a less invasive alternative with reduced patient morbidity. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of mVIP-CTG versus XCM in augmenting peri-implant soft tissue in the esthetic zone.
objectivesThe primary objective was to assess and compare the effect of mVIP-CTG versus XCM on keratinized tissue thickness (KTT). Secondary objectives included evaluating changes in keratinized tissue width (KTW), pink esthetic score (PES), and radiographic buccal cortex thickness (BCT) around immediate implants over a 6-month follow-up period.
methodsThis parallel-arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial included twenty patients requiring the extraction of a hopeless single anterior tooth. Patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups. One group received immediate implant placement, xenogeneic bone grafting, and mVIP-CTG, while the other groupreceived immediate implant placement, xenogeneic bone grafting, and XCM.Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained at baseline (prior to extraction) and at 6 months postoperatively. Clinical parameters, including KTT, KTW, and PES, were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. BCT was measured radiographically at baseline and 6 months using CBCT. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS® version 26. Data normality was evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Independent and paired t-tests were used for intra- and intergroup comparisons—repeated measures ANOVA was employed to assess changes over time. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Ethical approval was obtained from the Faculty Research Ethics Committee, Minia University (543/84/2021). The trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06808243) on February 5, 2025.
resultsAll patients completed the 6-month follow-up without dropout. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding KTW, PES, or BCT. However, the mVIP-CTG group demonstrated a significantly greater increase in KTT compared to the XCM group (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe pedicled mVIP-CTG technique resulted in a superior increase in keratinized tissue thickness around immediate implants compared to XCM. Despite this, XCM offered advantages in terms of reduced morbidity and shorter surgical time, suggesting it remains a viable alternative in cases where patient preference or clinical limitations preclude autogenous grafting.
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.