Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Soft Tissue Augmentation at Single Implants With Collagen Matrix or Connective Tissue Graft: 7.5-Year Follow-Up of a RCT.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Soft Tissue Volume Augmentation at Single Implant Sites Applying Collagen Matrices or Connective Tissue Grafts: 10-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare up to 7.5-year clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implant sites previously augmented using a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or connective tissue graft (SCTG) in the esthetic zone.
methodsThe original randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled 20 patients who received soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Clinical assessments and standardized measurements were performed at baseline after crown insertion (BL) and at 6 months, 1, 3, 5, and 7.5 years. The primary outcome was mucosal thickness. Secondary outcomes included marginal bone levels, probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, pink esthetic score (PES), OHIP-14, and buccal profilometric changes. Group comparisons were performed using mixed-effects and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models, which account for within-patient correlations due to repeated measurements and allow inclusion of all available data without requiring imputation for missing observations.
resultsOf the 20 originally recruited patients, 12 were available for re-examination at 7.5 years (five in the SCTG group and seven in the VCMX group). Mucosal thickness at crown delivery ranged from 2 to 4 mm across the study population. Adjusted mean differences (VCMX-SCTG) in mucosal thickness were +0.70 mm at BL, -0.02 mm at 6 months, +0.1 mm at 1 year, +0.1 mm at 3 years, +0.1 mm at 5 years and -0.1 mm at 7.5 years. None of these differences reached statistical significance (p > 0.05). For all secondary outcomes, no statistically significant inter-group differences were detected (p > 0.05) except for BOP at 5 years follow-up.
conclusionBoth augmentation approaches achieved stable peri-implant mucosal dimensions, preserved marginal bone levels, and favorable esthetic and patient-reported outcomes over 7.5 years. Volume-stable collagen matrices might be a viable alternative to SCTG for peri-implant soft-tissue augmentation; however, adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm these long-term observations. TRIALS REGISTRATION: DRKS00017484.
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.