Premium
The Effect of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft Placement on Esthetic Outcomes After Immediate Implant Placement: Systematic Review
Author(s) -
Lee ChunTeh,
Tao ChihYun,
Stoupel Janet
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.2015.150383
Subject(s) - medicine , gingival recession , dentistry , buccal administration , gingival margin , soft tissue , meta analysis , orthodontics , systematic review , medline , surgery , political science , law
Background: Immediate implantation, despite many advantages, carries a risk of gingival recession, papilla loss, collapse of ridge contour, and other esthetic complications. Soft tissue graft placement combined with immediate implantation may be used to reduce these concerns. This review aims to systematically analyze clinical esthetic outcomes of the immediate implant combined with soft tissue graft (IMITG). Methods: The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews were used. The electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1980 to October 2014. Quality assessments of selected articles were performed. Mid‐buccal gingival level, interproximal gingival level, facial gingival thickness, gingival ridge dimension, and width of keratinized gingiva were the esthetic outcomes reviewed. Weighted mean difference of mid‐buccal gingival level (WDBGL), papilla index score (WDPIS), and width of keratinized gingiva (WDKG) between initial and last measurements were calculated. Other esthetic outcomes were assessed by the descriptive analysis. Results: Ten studies with a minimum of 6‐month follow‐up were included, and reported esthetic outcomes were analyzed. Mid‐buccal gingival level (WDBGL, 0.07 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.44 to 0.59; P = 0.12) and interproximal gingival level did not significantly change after IMITG (WDPIS in the mesial site, 0.31; 95% CI = −0.01 to 0.64; P = 0.06; and WDPIS in the distal site, 0.29; 95% CI = −0.06 to 0.65; P = 0.11). Width of keratinized gingiva significantly increased after IMITG (WDKG, 1.27 mm; 95% CI = −0.08 to 2.46; P = 0.04). Facial gingival thickness and gingival ridge dimension could be increased after IMITG. Conclusions: Because of the heterogeneity and limited number of selected studies, no conclusive statement could be made regarding the benefit of IMITG on esthetic outcomes. More randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definite clinical evidence.