ReviewMaedica2026
Soft Tissue Augmentation Around Dental Implants - a Systematic Review.
Review in Maedica, 2026. 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: Peri-implant soft tissue characteristics, including keratinized mucosa (KM) width and mucosal thickness (MT), are critical for long-term implant health and aesthetics. Soft tissue augmentation (STA) procedures aim to enhance these parameters, but the medium- to long-term comparative efficacy of available techniques remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the medium- and long-term predictability of peri-implant soft tissue augmentation techniques in maintaining peri-implant health, keratinized mucosa width, mucosal thickness, marginal tissue stability, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes over follow-up periods ranging from six to 60 months. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, randomized controlled trials with at least 10 participants per arm, follow-up of six to 60 months and peri-implant soft tissue augmentation performed with bilaminar or apically positioned flap techniques were included. Autogenous grafts and substitute materials, including collagen matrix, acellular dermal matrix and volume-stable collagen matrix, were compared with alternative augmentation methods or non-augmented controls. Results: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Implant survival exceeded 95% across studies. Connective tissue grafts consistently produced the greatest gains in keratinized mucosa width, mucosal thickness, soft tissue margin stability and aesthetic outcomes, particularly in anterior and aesthetic sites. Autogenous grafts generally demonstrated better marginal bone level preservation, while volume-stable collagen matrix showed acceptable long-term stability with reduced donor-site morbidity. Conclusions: Connective tissue graft remains the most predictable method for long-term peri-implant soft tissue stability and aesthetics. Substitute materials such as acellular dermal matrix, collagen matrix and volume-stable collagen matrix are useful alternatives when reduced morbidity is prioritized, although their outcomes are more variable.
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.