# 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.

## Key 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.