Esthetic soft tissue management for teeth and implants

Abstract

Context. Can newly introduced graft materials be successfully used in soft tissue augmentation around teeth and dental implants? Evidence Acquisition. An electronic search on the PubMed database for English articles published before March 31, 2012, was performed using the following key words: "root coverage," "soft tissue graft," "periodontal plastic surgery," "subepithelial connective graft (SCTG)," "acellular dermal matrix (ADM)," "guided tissue regeneration based root coverage (GTRC)," "recession defects," "mucogingival defects," "collagen matrix," "living cellular construct (LCC)," "mucograft," and "biologic agents." Literature featuring new soft tissue graft materials, such as ADM, collagen matrix, GTRC, and biologic agents, were included. Evidence Synthesis. Data showed (1) allogeneic grafts were comparable to SCTG in terms of mean complete root coverage (CRC), mean root coverage (RC), and mean amount of keratinized tissue (KT) gain; (2) xenogeneic collagen matrix was as comparable to SCTG in terms of mean amount of KT gain around teeth and dental implants but inferior in achieving RC; (3) GTRC was inferior to SCTG in terms of mean CRC and mean RC; (4) LCC was inferior to free gingival graft in terms of mean amount of KT gain but was superior in esthetics and patient satisfaction; and (5) adjunctive use of biologic agents did not exert a significant effect on mean CRC, mean RC, and mean amount of KT gain. Conclusions. Although these new materials do not surpass the gold standard (SCTG), they do provide improved patient satisfaction and esthetics, are available in abundance, and lead to reduced postoperative discomfort and surgical time. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.