Soft Tissue Augmentation After Tooth Extraction Improves Implant Health: Findings From a Clinical Trial

TL;DR

This study found that soft tissue augmentation using Fibro-gide or connective tissue grafts after tooth extraction improves implant health more than spontaneous healing.

Contribution

The study demonstrates that Fibro-gide is as effective as connective tissue grafts in improving peri-implant health after tooth extraction.

Findings

Fibro-gide and connective tissue grafts significantly reduced plaque and bleeding on probing compared to spontaneous healing.

Both augmentation methods showed less gingival recession and marginal bone loss than spontaneous healing.

Fibro-gide is a viable alternative to connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation.

Abstract

Background

Soft tissue augmentation is a critical procedure in dental implantology aimed at improving peri-implant health and aesthetics. Various materials are used for this purpose, but their comparative effectiveness remains under-researched. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of soft tissue augmentation utilizing two different materials after tooth extraction on peri-implant clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methodology

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 30 participants requiring extraction of non-restorable mandibular posterior teeth. Participants were randomly assigned to receive connective tissue graft (CTG), Fibro-gide (FG), or spontaneous healing (SH) in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Two months post-treatment, dental implants were placed. Six months after the functional loading of the dental implant, peri-implant health was assessed using the Plaque Accumulation Index, bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth, mucosal recession, and marginal bone level.

Results

At the six-month follow-up, the SH group exhibited significantly higher Plaque Index and BOP percentages (6.43 ± 1.23 and 70%, respectively) compared to the CTG group (0.40 ± 0.32 and 8.3%, respectively) and FG group (0.45 ± 0.44 and 9.7%, respectively). The mean probing pocket depth was also significantly higher in the control group (5.13 ± 0.64 mm), while the CTG and FG groups showed minimal changes (3.83 ± 0.39 mm for both groups). Additionally, gingival recession was higher in the control group (0.65 ± 0.18 mm) compared to the CTG and FG groups (0.03 ± 0.08 mm for both groups). Radiographic analysis revealed greater marginal bone loss in the control group (0.40 ± 0.05 mm) compared to the CTG and FG groups, which demonstrated minimal bone loss (0.17 ± 0.08 mm and 0.20 ± 0.00 mm, respectively).

Conclusions

The study findings indicate that FG is as effective as CTG in maintaining peri-implant health, outperforming SH. These findings suggest that FG can be a viable alternative to CTG in soft tissue augmentation after tooth extraction, offering a new option for clinicians in the management of extraction sites before dental implant placement.

Figures