Clinical Evaluation of Soft Tissue Esthetics Around Immediate Implants in Vascularized Interpositional Periosteal Connective Tissue Grafted Versus Non-grafted Sites. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Clinical Evaluation of Soft Tissue Esthetics Around Immediate Implants in Vascularized Interpositional Periosteal Connective Tissue Grafted Versus Non-grafted Sites. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
An array of soft tissue augmentation techniques have been employed concomitant to implant placement, as free connective tissue grafts or pedicle grafts for keratinized tissue thickening in attempt not only to augment the soft tissue for better resistance to inflammation and improved esthetic stability, but to preserve buccal bone thickness as well.
Results obtained from the literature were controversial regarding the need of soft tissue augmentation to curb buccal bone resorption and preserve pink esthetics. Scarce literature was found, that monitored the ridge alterations following implant placement.
Our study will monitor the effect of soft tissue augmentation on soft tissue esthetics and buccal bone resorption during the process of remodeling in a measurable way.
Alveolar bone remodeling following extraction could not be prevented by immediate implant placement. Soft tissue augmentaion techniques have been suggested in order to overcome the alterations of buccal bone during remodeling. Nevertheless, it is still inconclusive whether soft tissue augmentation procedures actually have a protective role in preserving buccal bone thickness in immediate implants.
Aim is to clinically and radiographically assess the effect of soft tissue grafting on buccal bone resorption and pink esthetics around immediately placed implants in maxillary anterior teeth after 24 months following implant placement. 18 non-restorable maxillary anterior teeth randomly assigned into 2 groups: (test group) immediately placed implants with simultaneous vascular interpositional periosteal connective tissue (VIP-CT) grafting versus non-augmented implant sites (control group). Buccal bone changes were assessed at implant placement (0) and at 4,9,12 and 24 months from baseline by specially manufactured device and at 24 months by cone beam computed tomography scans (CBCT). Pink esthetic score (PES) was evaluated at 6, 9, 12 and 24 months intervals. Pain and satisfaction were assessed through questionnaires to the patients.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: