SynthesisJournal of periodontology2026
Use of cells and/or biologics combined with scaffolds for soft tissue regeneration around dental implants.
Synthesis in Journal of periodontology, 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.
- New technologies in oral reconstructive medicine: Consensus report of the AAP/OF/SEPA Workshop.Journal of periodontology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of cell-based therapies and biologically enhanced scaffolds for peri-implant soft tissue regeneration, including the increase in soft tissue thickness (STT) and/or keratinized mucosa (KM) augmentation.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source until August 2025. A focused question was developed: "In patients with soft tissue defects requiring soft tissue augmentation procedures prior to, at the time of implant placement or after it, what is the efficacy of combining cell therapy and/or biological treatments with a soft tissue scaffold compared to the use a soft tissue scaffold without cells and/or biologics, or no scaffold, on the increase of STT and/or KM in clinical trials or prospective case series?". Post-operative morbidity, interproximal bone level changes, clinical peri-implant outcomes or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0, ROBINS-I and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study Quality Assessment Tool.
resultsTen publications were included (six randomized clinical trials [RCTs] and four prospective case series). The use of free gingival grafts (FGGs) lead to significantly greater KM augmentation when compared with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membranes (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.3, -0.8; p < 0.001) although PRF membranes significantly increased the amount of KM when compared to no scaffold/graft (n = 2; WMD = 1.1 mm; 95% CI: 0.2, 2.1; p = 0.017) and seem to increase also STT. Available data on other biologics (e.g., recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB [rhPDGF-BB]) are scarce. No studies evaluating cell therapies were identified.
conclusionsPRF membranes are effective in increasing the KM and STT around dental implants, even if KM augmentation by means of autogenous grafts lead to superior outcomes. There is a lack of evidence on cell-based therapies or other biologics for their use in soft tissue regeneration around dental implants.
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.