ReviewJournal of Indian Society of Periodontology
Soft-tissue augmentation techniques for enhancing peri-implant volume: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review aimed to critically evaluate the effectiveness of soft-tissue augmentation (STA) techniques for enhancing peri-implant soft-tissue thickness and volume around dental implants with compromised soft tissue. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive electronic and manual search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASE via Ovid, covering studies published in English up to December 2024. Human studies investigating STA techniques for peri-implant soft-tissue volume augmentation were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, selected according to study design, were used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical studies (PCS), and case series (CS). Due to methodological heterogeneity, data were synthesized qualitatively rather than through meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-one studies (20 RCTs, 5 PCS, and 6 CS) were included. Reported soft-tissue thickness gain ranged from 0.08 to 3.59 mm and volume gain from 0.16 to 186.38 mm Conclusion: Within the limitations of heterogeneity and potential bias, STA techniques, particularly SCTGs, show promising potential for enhancing peri-implant soft-tissue thickness and volume. However, given the moderate-to-high risk of bias and the lack of a pooled analysis, these results should be interpreted with caution. Further well-designed RCTs with standardized methodologies, consistent outcome measures, and long-term follow-up are essential to validate these findings and optimize clinical protocols.
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.