Search

Objectives: To test whether soft tissue volume augmentation using a collagen matrix (VCMX) leads to noninferior results in terms of gain of mucosal thickness at single implant sites, compared to connective tissue grafts (SCTG). Methods: The study was designed as a multi‐center randomized controlled clinical trial. Subjects in need of soft tissue volume augmentation at single tooth implant sites were consecutively recruited at nine centers. The deficient mucosal thickness at the implant sites (one per patient) was augmented by applying either a VCMX or a SCTG. Patients were examined at 120 days (abutment connection = primary endpoint), 180 days (final restoration), and 360 days (1‐year after insertion of the final restoration). Outcome measures included: transmucosal probing of the mucosal thickness (crestal = primary outcome), profilometric measurements of the tissue volume, and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs).ResultsOut of the 88 patients, 79 attended the one‐year follow‐up. The median increase of the crestal mucosal thickness between pre‐augmentation and 120 days was 0.3 ± 2.1 mm in the VCMX group and 0.8 ± 1.6 mm in the SCTG group (p = .455). Non‐inferiority of the VCMX compared to the SCTG was not observed. The respective numbers at the buccal aspect amounted to 0.9 ± 2.0 mm (VCMX) and 1.1 ± 1.4 mm (SCTG; p = .431). PROMs including pain perception favored the VCMX group. Conclusion: It remains inconclusive whether soft tissue augmentation using a VCMX is noninferior to SCTG in terms of crestal mucosal thickening at single implant sites. However, the use of collagen matrices favors PROMs especially pain perception, while achieving similar buccal volume gains along with comparable clinical and aesthetic parameters to SCTG.

OBJECTIVES To compare clinical, radiographic, biological and technical long-term outcomes of two types of dental implants over a period of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-eight implants were placed in 64 patients, randomly allocated to one of two manufacturers (AST and STM). All implants were loaded with fixed restorations. Outcome measures were assessed at implant insertion (T$_{i}$), at baseline examination (T$_{L}$), at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 (T$_{10}$) years. Data analysis included survival, bone level changes, complications and clinical measures. RESULTS Re-examination was performed in 43 patients (23 AST and 20 STM) at 10 years. The implant level analysis was based on 37 (AST) and 32 (STM) implants. Survival rates of 100% were obtained for both groups. The median changes of the marginal bone levels between baseline and T$_{10}$ (the primary endpoint) amounted to a loss of 0.07 mm for group AST and a gain of 0.37 mm for group STM (intergroup p = 0.008). Technical complications occurred in 27.0% of the implants in group AST and in 15.6% in group STM. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 29.7% (AST) and 50.1% (STM). The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 0% (AST) and 6.3% (STM). CONCLUSIONS Irrespective of the implant system used, the survival rates after 10 years were high. Minimal bone level changes were observed, statistically significant but clinically negligible in favor of STM. Technical complications were more frequently encountered in group AST, while group STM had a higher prevalence of peri-implant mucositis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Emerging evidence indicates that the emergence profile and subsequent restorative angle play a crucial role in clinical outcomes and can potentially affect the development and progression of peri-implant diseases. However, the traditional evaluation of the emergence profile and angle has been limited to mesial and distal sites using periapical x-rays, without considering the buccal sites. PURPOSE: To describe a novel 3D method to estimate the emergence profile and restorative angles around single implant-supported crowns including buccal sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 implant-supported crowns (11 molars, 8 premolars, 8 central incisors and 1 canine) were extra-orally scanned using an intraoral scanner and the STL files produced were imported into a 3D software. The crown/abutment interface of each crown was delineated, and apico-coronal lines were automatically drawn following the shape of the crown. Three reference points were defined on the apico-coronal lines at the transition edge of the biological (BC) and the esthetic zone (EC) and the resulting angles were then calculated. The reliability of the measurements (2D and 3D) were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: In anterior restorations, the mean angle of the esthetic zone amounted to 162 ± 14° at mesial sites, to 140 ± 10° at buccal sites and to 163 ± 11° at distal sites. The corresponding angles at the biological zones, amounted to 155 ± 13° at mesial sites, 139 ± 15° at buccal sites and 157 ± 5° at distal sites. In posterior restorations, the mean angle of the esthetic zone amounted to 162 ± 12° at mesial sites, to 157 ± 13 at buccal sites and to 162 ± 11 at distal sites. The corresponding angles at the biological zone, amounted to 158 ± 8 at mesial sites, 150 ± 15° at buccal sites and 156 ± 10 at distal sites. The ICC for all measurements ranged between 0.77 and 0.99 indicating a good intra-examiner reliability. CONCLUSION: Within the limi

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare changes in soft and hard tissue and the histologic composition following early implant placement in sites with alveolar ridge preservation or spontaneous healing (SH), as well as implant performance up to 1 year after crown insertion. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with either intact buccal bone plates or dehiscence of up to 50% following single-tooth extraction of incisors, canines, or premolars were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to undergo one of three procedures: deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered by a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C alone, or SH. At 8 weeks, implant placement was carried out, and cone-beam computed tomography scans and impressions were obtained for profilometric analysis. Patients were followed up after the final crown insertion and again at 1 year post-procedure. RESULTS: Within the first 8 weeks following tooth extraction, the median height of the buccal soft tissue contour changed by -2.11 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -1.62 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.93 mm for the SH group. The corresponding height of the buccal mineralized tissue changed by -0.27 mm for the DBBM-C/CM group, -2.73 mm for the DBBM-C group, and -1.48mm for the SH group. The median contour changes between crown insertion and 1 year were -0.19 mm in the DBBM-C/CM group, -0.09 mm in the DBBM-C group, and -0.29 mm in the SH group. CONCLUSIONS: Major vertical and horizontal ridge contour changes occurred, irrespective of the treatment modality, up to 8 weeks following tooth extraction. The DBBM-C/CM preserved more mineralized tissue throughout this period, despite a substantial reduction in the overall contour. All 3 protocols led to stable tissues for up to 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the volumetric changes and peri-implant health at implant sites with and without previous soft tissue grafting over a 12-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received dental implants and simultaneously guided bone regeneration in the esthetic zone (15-25) for dental rehabilitation. Three months following implant placement, 8 patients (test) received an additional subepithelial connective tissue graft, whereas 10 patients (control) did not receive any additional treatment. One week after prothesis delivery and at the 5 and 12 years follow-up examination, impressions were taken. Obtained casts were processed for profilometric and linear analyses. The mean distance (MD) in the mid-buccal area between the two surfaces was considered the primary outcome. Peri-implant health was assessed based on clinical and radiographic data. RESULTS: Nine female and 7 male patients were re-assessed after a median follow-up time of 144.5 months (Min: 114.8; Max: 213.0). The median reduction of MD amounted to -0.81 mm (Min: -1.39; Max: 0.52) in the test group and -0.56 mm (Min: -0.93; Max: 0.11) in the control group, (intergroup comparison p = .607, CI 95%: -0.760/0.530). None of the implants was diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Six tests and two control implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (p = .103). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of included patients, similar results in terms of volumetric, linear changes, and peri-implant conditions could be detected at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting over a period of 12 years.

BACKGROUND Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG. METHODS Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments. CONCLUSION Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading.

OBJECTIVES To analyze the influence of compression on tissue integration and degradation of soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six subcutaneous pouches in twenty-eight rats were prepared and boxes made of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ were implanted and used as carriers for soft tissue substitutes: a collagen matrix (MG), two volume-stable collagen matrices (FG/MGA), and a polycaprolactone scaffold(E). The volume-stable materials (FG/MGA/E) were further implanted with a twofold (2) and a fourfold (4) compression, created by the stacking of additional layers of the substitute materials. The samples were retrieved at 1, 2, and 12 weeks (10 groups, 3 time points, n = 5 per time point and group, overall, 150 samples). The area fraction of infiltrated fibroblasts and inflammatory cells was evaluated histologically. Due to within-subject comparisons, mixed models were conducted for the primary outcome. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS The area fraction of fibroblasts increased in all groups over time. At 12 weeks, the densely compressed materials FG4 (1.1%), MGA4 (1.7%), and MGA2 (2.5%) obtained lower values as compared to the other groups, ranging between 4.7 (E2) and 6.5% (MG). Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were observed between groups FG4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 as well as between MGA4 vs MG/FG2/E/E4 and E vs MGA2. CONCLUSIONS Higher levels of compression led to delayed tissue integration. The effect of different compression levels was more distinct when compared to the differences between the materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE All biomaterials demonstrated tissue integration and a minimal concomitant inflammatory reaction. Clinically, it might be more favorable to obtain a sufficient flap release or to reduce the material size to improve the tissue integration processes.

AIM The aim of the study was to identify and report outcome measures and methods of assessment on soft-tissue augmentation interventions in the context of dental implant therapy reported in clinical studies published in the last 10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The protocol of this PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021252214). A literature search was conducted to identify articles that met the pre-established eligibility criteria. Data of interest, with an emphasis on outcome measures, were extracted. For each outcome, specific methods and timing of assessment were described in detail. Following a critical qualitative analysis of the data, outcome measures were categorized. Primary outcomes were identified and the frequency of reporting in the selected articles was calculated. Additionally, risk of bias assessments were performed for individual articles and primary outcomes. RESULTS Ninety-two articles, of which 39 reported randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 20 reported non-RCTs, and 33 reported case series studies, were selected. Outcome measures were categorized into either investigator-evaluated outcome measures (i.e., clinical, digital imaging, esthetic, histologic, biomarker, and safety) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Clinical outcomes were the most frequently reported type of outcome. Considering all categories, the most frequently reported primary outcomes were facial mucosa thickness assessed with clinical methods (22.83%), facial keratinized mucosa width assessed with clinical methods (19.57%), facial mucosal margin position/recession assessed with clinical methods (18.48%), facial mucosa thickness assessed with digital imaging methods (11.96%), facial soft-tissue volume assessed with digital imaging methods (9.78%), and supracrestal tissue height assessed with clinical methods (9.78%). No distinguishable patterns of association between specific types or quality (level of bias) of clinical studies and th

The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of soft tissue substitutes versus autogenous grafts for soft tissue augmentation procedures at implant sites. Comprehensive and systematic literature searches were performed until December 2021. A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria (PICO): In patients with dental implants undergoing soft tissue augmentation (P), do soft tissue substitutes (I) compared to autogenous soft tissue graft (SCTG [subepithelial connective tissue graft]) (C) limit the post-operative morbidity and other patient reported-outcomes measures (O). Randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective-, retrospective- and case-series studies were included. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible and the results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). A total of 29 clinical studies were included. For mucosal thickness gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 14.91 Visual Analog Scale [VAS] units; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.42-23.40; P < .0006) based on a 0-100 VAS scale. Based on a 0-10 VAS scale, a borderline significance of pain reduction was found when soft tissue substitutes were applied (n = 4; WMD = 1.62 VAS units; 95% CI 0.01-3.23; P = .05). For keratinized tissue gain, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain perception after keratinized tissue augmentation compared to SCTG based on a 0-100 VAS scale (n = 2; WMD = 21.43 VAS units; 95% CI 12.58-30.28; P < .0001). Based on the 0-10 VAS scale, soft tissue substitutes significantly reduced the pain as compared to SCTG (n = 4; WMD = 1.65 VAS units; 95% CI 0.66-2.64; P = .001). Regarding pain medication, soft tissue substitutes required less painkillers (n = 6; WMD = 1.56 tablets; 95% CI 1.22-1.91; P < .00001) after soft tissue augmentation. The surgery time was significantly reduced when soft tissue substitut

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow.

Objectives To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions at 8 years. Materials and methods Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL), one (T1), three (T3), five (T5), and eight years (T8). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. Results Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: −0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: −0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). Conclusions Dental implants with non-matching implant–abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to comprehensively assess the literature in terms of the effect of peri-implant mucosal thickness on esthetic outcomes and the efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures to increase the mucosal thickness with autogenous grafts or soft tissue substitutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two systematic reviews (SR) were performed prior to the consensus meeting to assess the following questions. Review 1, focused question: In systemically healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed prosthesis, what is the influence of thin as compared to thick peri-implant mucosa on esthetic outcomes? Review 2, focused question 1: In systemically healthy humans with at least one dental implant (immediate or staged implant), what is the efficacy of connective tissue graft (CTG), as compared to absence of a soft tissue grafting procedure, in terms of gain in peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) reported by randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs)? Review 2, focused question 2: In systemically healthy humans with at least one dental implant (immediate or staged implant), what is the efficacy of CTG, as compared to soft tissue substitutes, in terms of gain in peri-implant STT reported by RCTs or CCTs? The outcomes of the two SRs, the consensus statements, the clinical implications, and the research recommendations were discussed and subsequently approved at the consensus meeting during the group and plenary sessions. CONCLUSIONS There was a tendency of superior esthetic outcomes in the presence of a thick mucosa. The connective tissue graft remains the standard of care in terms of increasing mucosa thickness.

The management and prevention of soft tissue complications is of key importance in modern implant dentistry and influences biologic and esthetic outcomes. The assessment of the soft tissue conditions from a quantitative and qualitative perspective should, therefore, be part of the overall treatment plan. Such an assessment dictates a potential indication as well as an ideal time point for additional soft tissue management. A proper risk assessment and management of the soft tissues at the planned implant site are of key importance prior to any implant-related surgery. Cases with peri-implant soft tissue complications generally involve: (a) a lack of attached and keratinized mucosa; (b) insufficient volume; (c) development of mucosal dehiscences; or (d) a combination of (a), (b), and (c). In case of soft tissue deficiencies, these should be addressed as early as possible to increase the predictability of the surgical interventions. This article reviews the main causes for peri-implant soft tissue complications and presents different therapeutic options for the management of various clinical scenarios.

PURPOSE This study was conducted to assess the effect of hard and/or soft tissue grafting on immediate implants in a preclinical model. METHODS In 5 mongrel dogs, the distal roots of P2 and P3 were extracted from the maxilla (4 sites in each animal), and immediate implant placement was performed. Each site was randomly assigned to 1 of the following 4 groups: i) gap filling with guided bone regeneration (the GBR group), ii) subepithelial connective tissue grafting (the SCTG group), iii) GBR and SCTG (the GBR/SCTG group), and iv) no further treatment (control). Non-submerged healing was provided for 4 months. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS Peri-implant tissue height and thickness favored the SCTG group (height of peri-implant mucosa: 1.14 mm; tissue thickness at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 1.14 mm, 0.78 mm, and 1.57 mm, respectively; median value) over the other groups. Bone grafting was not effective at the level of the implant shoulder and on the coronal level of the shoulder. In addition, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation (the GBR/SCTG group) led to a less favorable tissue contour compared to GBR or SCTG alone (height of peri-implant mucosa: 3.06 mm; thickness of peri-implant mucosa at the implant shoulder and ±1 mm from the shoulder: 0.72 mm, 0.3 mm, and 1.09 mm, respectively). CONCLUSION SCTG tended to have positive effects on the thickness and height of the peri-implant mucosa in immediate implant placement. However, simultaneous soft and hard tissue augmentation might not allow a satisfactory tissue contour in cases where the relationship between implant position and neighboring bone housing is unfavorable.

AIM To assess the frequency and quantity of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth after at least 10 years of follow-up (FU). METHODS Thirty-nine patients (median age 57.3 years) with 80 implants were re-examined at least 10 years after insertion of final restorations (single crowns or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)). Baseline (insertion of the restorations) and FU examinations encompassed the following: Stone casts were scanned and superimposed for metric assessment of tooth movements, radiographs, and clinical measurements. Outcome measures at implant sites were as follows: the extent of tooth movement and the frequency of interproximal contact loss [ICL], peri-implant marginal bone levels [MBLs], and clinical measurements (plaque control record [PCR], Bleeding on Probing [BOP], and probing depth [PD]). Data were analyzed statistically with generalized regression modeling with robust standard errors to account for within-patient clustering at 5%. RESULTS Interproximal contact loss for at least one contact point after 10 years was observed in 50% of all implants (with open interproximal spaces up to 1.64 mm). Mesial contact points were significantly more prone to ICL than distal ones (relative risk [RR] = 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-2.99; p = .03). The type of restoration had a significant effect on ICL, with FDPs of 2 implants being significantly more prone to mesial ICL than single crowns (RR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.02-2.25; p = .04). ICL was also associated with a significant increase in PD (+0.46 mm (95% CI = 0.04-0.88 mm; p = .03)) compared to implant sites without ICL. BOP, MBLs, and PCR were not significantly influenced by ICL. CONCLUSION Interproximal contact loss was a common finding in 50% of the implant sites and was significantly associated with an increase in PD.

OBJECTIVES In systematically healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed restoration (P), what is the influence of thin (E) as compared to thick (C) peri-implant soft tissues on aesthetic outcomes (O)? METHODS Following an a priori protocol, a literature search of six databases was conducted up to August 2020 to identify prospective/retrospective clinical studies on healthy patients with an implant-supported fixed reconstruction. Measurement of the buccal soft tissue thickness and an aesthetic outcome was a prerequisite, and sites presenting with a buccal soft tissue thickness of <2 mm or shimmering of a periodontal probe were categorized as a thin phenotype. After study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, random-effects meta-analysis of Mean Differences (MD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were conducted, followed by sensitivity analyses and assessment of the quality of evidence. RESULTS Thirty-four unique studies reporting on 1508 patients with 1606 sites were included (9 randomized controlled trials, one controlled trial, 10 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross-sectional studies, and 6 retrospective cohort studies). The mean difference of the pink aesthetic score (PES) after the follow-up was not significantly different between thin (<2.0 mm) or thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (12 studies; MD = 0.15; [95% CI = -0.24, 0.53]; p = .46). PES changes during the follow-up, however, were significantly in favour of thick soft tissues (≥2.0 mm) or phenotypes (p = .05). An increased mean mucosal thickness was associated with an increased papilla index (5 studies; MD = 0.5; [95% CI = 0.1, 0.3]; p = .002) and an increase in papilla presence (5 studies; OR = 1.6; [95% CI = 1.0, 2.3]; p = .03). Thin soft tissues were associated with more recession, -0.62 mm (4 studies; [95% CI = -1.06, -0.18]; p = .006). Patient-reported outcome measures (patient satisfaction) were in favour of thick soft tissues -2

AIM To determine the effect of (1) implant placement timing and (2) the type of soft tissue graft in terms of ridge profile changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four implant treatment modalities were applied in the mesial root areas of the third and fourth mandibular premolars of 10 mongrel dogs alongside connective-tissue graft (CTG) and volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrix (VCMX): immediate, early, and delayed placement (DP), and DP following alveolar ridge preservation (ARP). All dogs were sacrificed 3 months after soft tissue augmentation. Standard Tessellation Language files from designated time points were analysed. RESULTS Compared with the pre-extraction situation, the median width of the ridge demontstrated a linear increase only in group ARP/CTG (0.07 mm at the 2-mm level), whereas all other groups showed a reduction (between -1.87 and -0.09 mm, p > .05). Groups ARP/CTG (0.17 mm) and DP/CTG (0.05 mm) exhibited a profilometric tissue gain in a set region of interest (p > .05). The net effect of CTG and VCMX ranged from 0.14 to 0.79 mm. CONCLUSIONS Dimensional ridge changes varied between treatment protocols. ARP with CTG led to the smallest difference in ridge profile between the pre-extraction and the study end time point. Both CTG and VCMX enhanced the ridge contour.

OBJECTIVES To assess long-term outcomes of implants placed in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR) with or without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven patients with at least two lateral bone defects (split-mouth design) received a total of 34 implants. The defects were treated with a xenogenic bone substitute with (test) or without (control) rhBMP-2 and covered with a collagen membrane. Eight patients could be reexamined after at least 17 years. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed to assess differences between test and control groups. RESULTS The implant survival rate was 100% for all test and control sites. Mean marginal bone levels were 2.51 mm (SD ±1.64) (mesial test), 1.83 mm (SD ±0.93) (mesial control) (p = .055), 2.36 mm (SD ±1.70) (distal test), and 2.13 mm (SD ±0.84) (distal control) (p = 1.000). Compared with the mean values at baseline, a mean bone loss of 1.16 mm (SD ±1.60) (test) and 0.70 mm (SD ±1.02) (control) was found. The mean buccal bone gain after 17 years was 5.38 mm (test) and 3.14 mm (control) based on the comparison between the measurements at the cone beam CT after 17 years and the data from the intraoperative measurements at baseline. Further, mean values for (i) bone thickness ranged from 1.36 to 3.09 mm (test) and 1.18 to 3.39 mm (control) and for (ii) mucosal thickness of 1.24 mm (test) and 1.26 mm (control). CONCLUSION Implants placed in conjunction with GBR applying a xenogenic bone substitute and a collagen membrane with and without the addition of rhBMP-2 demonstrate excellent clinical and radiographic results after at least 17 years.

OBJECTIVES To compare screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns regarding biological and technical outcomes over a 5-year observation period. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 44 patients, 44 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic zone. Patients randomly received a screw-retained (SR) or cemented (CR) all-ceramic single crown and were then re-examined annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures included: clinical, biological, technical, and radiographic parameters. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS During the observation period, three patients (6.8%) were loss to follow-up. Eight restorations (18.2%, CI (8.2%, 32.7%)) were lost due to technical (6 patients, 13.6% (CI (5.2%, 27.4%)), 2 CR and 4 SR group, intergroup p = .673; implants still present) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5% (CI (0.6%, 16.5%)), only CR group, intergroup p = .201, both implants lost). This resulted in a survival rate of 81.2% (CI (65.9%, 90.1%)) on the restorative level (18 SR; 15 CR, 3 lost to follow-up). At the 5-year follow-up, the median marginal bone levels were located slightly apical relative to the implant shoulder with 0.4 mm (0.5; 0.3) (SR) and 0.4 mm (0.8; 0.3) (CR) (intergroup p = .582). Cemented restorations demonstrated a significantly higher biological complication rate (36.8%, SR: 0.0%; intergroup p = .0022), as well as a significantly higher overall complication rate (68.4%, SR: 22.7%, intergroup p = .0049). All other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS All-ceramic single-tooth restorations on two-piece dental implants resulted in a relatively low survival rate. Cemented restorations were associated with a higher biological and overall complication rate than screw-retained restorations.

AIM To describe and compare the pontic site development for fixed-dental prostheses (FDPs) with and without soft tissue grafting up to one-year post insertion of FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS A convenience sample of 24 patients participating in an ongoing RCT was provided with three-unit tooth-borne FDPs. Six patients received a subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) at the pontic site, whereas 18 patients were treated without any soft tissue graft (CONTROL). Digital impressions were taken prior to tooth preparation, after tooth preparation, after insertion of the final FDP, and at the 1 year of follow-up. The obtained stereolithography files (STL) were superimposed and profilometric as well as linear changes of the soft tissue profile were assessed at the pontic regions. Profilometric outcomes included changes of the ridge contour, the alveolar ridge width, and the crown height of the pontic. Further outcomes assessed included: the papilla index, the pink esthetic score (PES), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque control record (PCR). Descriptive and nonparametric statistics were applied for all outcome measures. RESULTS The median profilometric contour between tooth preparation and 1 year after the insertion of the final FDP decreased by - 0.25 mm [Q1, Q3: - 0.36, 0.14] in the CONTROL group and increased by 0.61 mm [Q1, Q3: - 0.18, 1.06] in the SCTG group (intergroup p = 0.038). The alveolar ridge width between prior to tooth preparation and the one-year follow-up amounted to - 0.12 mm [Q1, Q3: - 0.74, 0.70] (= loss) in the CONTROL group and to 2.23 mm [Q1, Q3: 0.62, 3.86] (= gain) in the SCTG group (intergroup p = 0.032). At one year, the median crown height of the pontic tended to decrease by - 1.24 mm [Q1, Q3: - 2.05, - 1.05] in the SCTG group (intragroup p = 0.094) and by - 0.22 mm [Q1, Q3: - 0.58, 0.66] in the CONTROL group (intragroup p = 0.831), with significant differences between the groups (intergroup p = 0.022). The papilla inde

AIM To test whether the emergence profile (CONVEX or CONCAVE) of implant-supported crowns influences the mucosal margin stability up to 12 months after insertion of the final restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-seven patients with a single implant in the anterior region were randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) CONVEX (n = 15), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a convex profile; (2) CONCAVE (n = 16), implant provisional and an implant-supported crown both with a concave profile; (3) CONTROL (n = 16), no provisional (healing abutment only) and an implant-supported crown. All patients were recalled at baseline, 6, and 12 months. The stability of mucosal margin along with clinical, aesthetic, and profilometric outcomes as well as time and costs were evaluated. To predict the presence of recession, multivariable logistic regressions were performed and linear models using generalized estimation equations were conducted for the different outcomes. RESULTS Forty-four patients were available at 12 months post-loading. The frequency of mucosal recession amounted to 64.3% in group CONVEX, 14.3% in group CONCAVE, and 31.4% in group CONTROL. Regression models revealed that a CONVEX profile was significantly associated with the presence of recessions (odds ratio: 12.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.82-88.48, p = .01) compared with the CONCAVE profile. Pink aesthetic scores amounted to 5.9 in group CONVEX, 6.2 in group CONCAVE, and 5.4 in group CONTROL, with no significant differences between the groups (p = .735). Groups CONVEX and CONCAVE increased the appointments and costs compared with the CONTROL group. CONCLUSIONS The use of implant-supported provisionals with a CONCAVE emergence profile results in a greater stability of the mucosal margin compared with a CONVEX profile up to 12 months of loading. This is accompanied, however, by increased time and costs compared with the absence of a provisional and may not necessarily enhance the ae

AIM: To assess radiographic, restorative, clinical and technical outcomes as well as patient satisfaction of directly veneered zirconia restorations cemented on non-original titanium bases over 5 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with a single missing tooth in the aesthetic zone were recruited. All patients received a two-piece implant with a screw-retained veneered zirconia restoration cemented extraorally on a titanium base abutment. Marginal bone levels (MBL), marginal bone changes, technical complications, patient satisfaction and clinical parameters including probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index were assessed at crown delivery (baseline), at 1 year (FU-1) and 5 years (FU-5) of follow-up. To investigate the relationship between restorative angle and MBL as well as marginal bone changes (bone loss/bone gain), correlation tests and linear regression models were carried out. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were available for re-examination at 5 years. The mean MBL amounted to 0.54 ± 0.39 mm at baseline, and to 0.24 ± 0.35 at FU-5 (=bone gain) (p < .001). At FU-1, a positive correlation (r = .5) between the mesial restorative angle and mesial MBL was found (p = .012). Marginal bone changes between baseline and FU-1 at mesial sites were also positively correlated with the mesial restorative angle (r = .5; p = .037). Linear and logistic regression models confirmed that mesial marginal bone loss was significantly associated with the mesial restorative angle at FU-1 (p < .05). At 5 years, these significant associations at mesial sites disappeared (p > .05). At distal sites, no correlations or associations between the restorative angle and MBL or marginal bone changes were found regardless of the time point. During the 5-year follow-up, 5 technical complications occurred, mainly within the first year and mostly chippings. All patients were entirely satisfied with their implant-supported restoration at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation

OBJECTIVES To compare cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based restorations in terms of clinical, radiographic, and technical outcomes 5 years after insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-four patients with single-tooth implants were randomly restored with either a cemented lithium disilicate crown on a one-piece customized zirconia abutment (CEM, 17 patients) or a screw-retained crown based on a directly veneered one-piece customized zirconia abutment (SCREW, 16 patients). All patients were recalled for a baseline examination (7-10 days after crown insertion) and then annually up to 5 years. The following outcomes were assessed: marginal bone level (changes), technical, and clinical (bleeding on probing, plaque control record, probing depth, and keratinized tissue) parameters. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to assess differences between the two groups. RESULTS At 5 years, 26 patients (13 in each group) were re-examined. The survival rates on the implant and restorative levels were 100% and 82.4% (equally for both groups), respectively. At 5 years, the median marginal bone level was located at -0.15 mm (IQR: -0.89 mm; 0.27 mm) (CEM) and -0.26 mm (IQR: -0.38 mm; 0.01 mm) (SCREW) below the implant shoulder (intergroup p = .9598). The median changes between baseline and the 5-year follow-up amounted to -0.23 mm (CEM; intragroup p = .0002) and -0.15 mm (SCREW; intragroup p = .1465) (intergroup p = .1690). The overall technical complication rate at 5 years was 15.4% (CEM) and 15.4% (SCREW) (intergroup p = 1.00). Clinical parameters remained stable over time (baseline to 5 years). CONCLUSIONS At 5 years, screw-retained and cemented restorations rendered largely the same clinical, technical, and radiographic outcomes. Technical complications were frequent in both groups.

OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue

OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not primary bone augmentation using xenograft blocks infused with BMP-2 or autogenous bone blocks lead to similar results regarding the implant survival and 3D marginal soft tissue contours. METHODS Twenty-four patients with an insufficient ridge width for implant placement in need of primary augmentation were randomly assigned to either a block of deproteinized bovine bone mineral infused with rhBMP-2 (BMP) or an intraorally harvested block of autogenous bone (ABB). At 4 months, 1-4 dental implants were placed in the regenerated area. After crown insertion and at 3 years, peri-implant tissue parameters, two- and three-dimensional radiographic parameters, and soft tissue contour changes were evaluated. Explorative mixed model analyses were performed. The level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS At the 3-year follow-up, 23 patients with 40 implants were evaluated. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. At baseline, the marginal hard tissue levels amounted to -0.4 ± 0.8 mm (mean ± standard deviation) in the BMP group and -0.7 ± 1.0 mm in the ABB group. At 3 years, these values were -0.2 ± 0.4 mm (BMP) and -0.6 ± 1.0 mm (ABB). At baseline, the thickness of the buccal hard tissue at the level of the implant shoulder measured 1.1 ± 1.1 mm (BMP) and 1.4 ± 1.0 mm (ABB). At 3 years, it measured 0.9 ± 0.9 mm (BMP) and 0.7 ± 0.6 mm (ABB). CONCLUSIONS The present study demonstrated excellent implant survival rates and stable marginal hard tissue levels in both augmentation groups, 3 years after crown insertion. In addition, the clinical stability of soft and hard tissues was demonstrated in both groups.

Information regarding profilometric changes at a soft tissue level following implant placement with different protocols is insufficient. Therefore, this study aimed to comparatively investigate the profilometric tissue changes with respect to late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites. Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: implant placement 4 months post-ARP (group LP/ARP) and tooth extraction and implant placement 4-8 weeks post-extraction (group EP). Dental impressions were obtained immediately after final prosthesis insertion and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At the time of implant placement, bone augmentation was performed in the majority of the patients. Profilometric changes of the tissue contour were minimal between the final prosthesis insertion and 12 months in the mid-facial area (0.04-0.35 mm in group LP/ARP, 0.04-0.19 mm in group EP). The overall tissue volume increased in both groups (1.70 mm3 in group LP/ARP, 0.96 mm3 in group EP). In conclusion, LP/ARP and EP led to similar stability of the peri-implant tissue contour between the final prosthesis insertion and at 12 months. Moreover, the change of peri-implant tissue on the soft tissue level was minimal in both modalities.

OBJECTIVES To analyse whether there is a difference in marginal bone levels (MBL) and the respective changes between cemented and screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading. METHODS Radiographic data from 14 prospective multicentre clinical trials following implant loading with fixed cemented (CEM) or screw-retained (SCREW) reconstructions with a 3- to 5-year follow-up were retrieved from a database. MBL and MBL changes were assessed at initiation of implant loading (BL), at 3 (FU-3) and 5 years (FU-5) thereafter. The presence of peri-implantitis was also determined. RESULTS Data from 1,672 implants at BL, 1,565 implants at FU-3 and 1,109 implants at FU-5 were available. The mean MBL amounted to 0.57 mm (SD 0.87) at BL, 0.55 mm (SD 0.86) at FU-3 and 0.65 mm (SD 1.18) at FU-5. At FU-3, the mean MBL was 0.44 mm (SD 0.65) in group CEM and 0.63 mm (SD 0.99) in group SCREW showing a significant difference between the groups (intergroup <0.05). At FU-5, the mean MBL was 0.42 mm (SD 0.77) in CEM and 0.80 mm (SD 1.37) in SCREW, again with significant differences between both groups (p < .05). MBL changes between BL and FU-3 amounted to 0.11 mm (SD 1.02) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.17 mm (SD 1.03) (bone gain) in CEM. Similarly, mean MBL changes from BL to FU-5 amounted to 0.23 mm (SD 1.31) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.26 mm (SD 1.27) (bone gain) in CEM. The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 6.9% in CEM and 5.6% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .29063) at FU-3. At FU-5, peri-implantitis amounted to 4.6% in CEM and 6.2% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .28242). CONCLUSION Cemented implant reconstructions compared with screw-retained reconstructions revealed higher marginal bone levels and similar rates of peri-implantitis during 5 years. The difference in MBL and the respective changes between the two groups, however, appear to be clinically negligible.

PURPOSE To clinically and histomorphometrically compare a biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sinus floor elevation procedures (lateral window) were performed randomly applying either BCP (test) or DBBM (control). At 6 months, bone biopsy specimens were harvested and dental implants were placed. The proportions of new bone, residual grafting material, and nonmineralized soft tissue were calculated. Four months after implant placement, the prosthetic reconstructions were inserted and the implant survival was assessed. RESULTS Fifty-one patients were treated; 25 were randomly allocated to the BCP group and 26 to the DBBM group. After 6 months in 50 patients, bone biopsy specimens could be harvested, and a total of 121 implants could be placed subsequently. The histomorphometric analysis revealed a comparable percentage of new bone in both groups (BCP 35.9%, DBBM 35.4%; P > .05). The remaining grafting material was significantly lower with BCP (25.3%) compared with DBBM (45.9%; P < .001). Nonmineralized tissue was significantly higher for the BCP group (38.1%) compared with the DBBM group (18.2%; P < .001). The implant survival rate at loading was assessed at the level of the patients (96.0% for BCP and 88.8% for DBBM; P > .05) and at the level of the implants (96.9% for BCP and 94.7% for DBBM; P > .05). CONCLUSION Grafting with DBBM or BCP showed similar percentages of new bone 6 months after sinus floor elevation. Implant survival presented no significant difference until loading.

The objective of this study was to investigate in vitro release kinetics and ossification patterns of bone morphogenetic protein-2-soaked collagenated porcine bone mineral (BMP-2/CPBM) in rabbit sinuses. Release kinetics of BMP-2/CPBM was determined in vitro up to 56 days. In 16 rabbits, BMP-2/CPBM (BMP group) and CPBM alone (control group) were bilaterally grafted in both sinuses. After 4 (N = 8) and 12 (N = 8) weeks, radiographic and histologic analyses were performed. Approximately 40% of BMP-2 was released from CPBM during 3 days in vitro; release maintained at a reduced level until day 56. In vivo, new bone formation in BMP group was dominant at the center and decreased toward the borders of the sinus, while it mainly possessed close to the sinus membrane and basal bone in control group. At the center, significantly more new bone was found in BMP group compared to control group at 4 weeks (29.14% vs. 16.50%; p < 0.05). The total augmented volume of BMP group was significantly greater than control group at 4 (370.13 mm$^{3}$ vs. 299.32 mm$^{3}$) and 12 (400.40 mm$^{3}$ vs. 290.10 mm$^{3}$) weeks (p < 0.05). In conclusion, BMP-2/CPBM demonstrated a core ossification with a greater augmented volume and new bone formation in the center of the sinus compared to CPBM alone. Impact statement The center of the augmented maxillary sinus tends to show a slower and inferior new bone formation compared to the sites near the sinus membrane and basal bone. In this study, bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) loaded onto collagenated porcine bone mineral (CPBM) resulted in a greater augmented volume and new bone formation at the center of the grafted sinus compared to CPBM alone. Therefore, BMP-2-added CPBM in maxillary sinus augmentation may potentially be beneficial to the clinicians, in terms of accelerating the new bone formation at the center area where the apical half of the implant fixture usually places.

OBJECTIVES: To assess contour changes of peri-implant tissues comparing a one- and a two-piece dental implant system over 12 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients seeking implant therapy were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive implants (a one-piece (STM) or a two-piece (BRA) system). Impressions were taken at the time of insertion of the final reconstruction (BL), after 1 year (FU-1), 5 years (FU-5), and at 12 years (FU-12). Thirty patients were included in the analysis (STM, 16; BRA, 14). Digital scans of casts were superimposed and analyzed in an image analysis program. Measurements included changes of the crown height, contour changes on the buccal side of the implants and the contralateral teeth (control). RESULTS: Contour changes at implant sites revealed a loss of - 0.29 mm (STM) and - 0.46 mm (BRA) during an observation period of 12 years. Contour changes at the corresponding tooth sites amounted to - 0.06 mm (STM) and - 0.12 mm (BRA) during the same time period. The implant crown gained 0.25 mm (STM) and 0.08 mm (BRA) in height due to recession of the marginal mucosa. The corresponding gain in crown height at the contralateral tooth sites amounted to 0.36 mm (STM) and 0.10 mm (BRA). Interproximal marginal bone level changes measured - 0.28 mm (STM) and - 1.11 mm (BRA). The mean BOP amounted to 38.8% (STM) and 48.7% (BRA) at the 12-year follow-up (FU-12). CONCLUSION: Minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour were observed at implant sites over the period of 12 years irrespective of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system. The differences between the implant sites and corresponding teeth were clinically negligible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Peri-implant soft tissue stability is of high clinical relevance when monitoring dental implant sites on the long run. Clinical data on the extent of soft tissue changes around different implant systems are scarce. The present RCTs demonstrate minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour

AIM To assess histopathological and histomorphometric outcomes of soft tissue volume augmentation procedures at pontic sites using a volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrix (VCMX) and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix (XCM). MATERIALS AND METHODS In twelve adult beagle dogs, the mandibular premolars and first molar were hemisected and the mesial root extracted. Soft tissue augmentation was randomly performed using VCMX, XCM, or a sham-operated control. Sacrifice was performed after 4, 8, and 26 weeks. Non-decalcified sections were analyzed for histopathologic and histomorphometric measurements at four different levels below the crest (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 5.5 mm). RESULTS Group VCMX presented a greater overall amount of soft tissue at all healing time points, more pronounced fibroblast ingrowth, vascularization, and a substantial new collagen deposition. Over time, group XCM demonstrated faster signs of degradation compared with group VCMX. Four weeks after augmentation, group VCMX yielded a higher mean ridge width compared with groups XCM (2.22 mm VCMX, 0.89 mm XCM (at 2.5 mm); 2.05 mm VCMX, 0.80 mm XCM (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05) and sham (0.59 mm sham (at 1.5 mm); 0.48 mm (at 2.5 mm); 0.44 mm (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05). After healing periods of 8 and 26 weeks, measurements in group VCMX remained significantly higher compared with group sham both at 8 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 5.5 mm) and at 26 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION The use of a cross-linked collagen matrix resulted in a greater and more stable ridge width over time compared with control groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Soft tissue volume augmentation at pontic sites is more effective when using a cross-linked compared with a non-cross-linked collagen matrix.

AIM To test whether or not the use of a short implant with a cantilever results in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants with single tooth reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-six patients with two adjacent missing teeth in the posterior region were randomly assigned to receive either a single 6-mm implant with a cantilever (ONE-C) or two 6-mm implants (TWO). Fixed reconstructions were inserted 3-6 months after implant placement and patients were re-examined up to 5 years (FU-5). RESULTS A total of 26 patients were available for re-examination at FU-5. The survival rate amounted to 84.2% in ONE-C and to 80.4% in TWO (inter-group: p = .894). Technical complication rates amounted to 64.2% (ONE-C) and to 54.4% (TWO) (inter-group: p = 1.000). From baseline to FU-5, the median changes of the marginal bone levels were 0.13 mm in ONE-C and 0.05 mm in TWO (inter-group: p = .775). Probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque control record values showed no significant differences between the two treatment modalities (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS Short implants with a cantilever render similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to two adjacent short implants at 5 years, however, they tend to fail at earlier time points suggesting an overload of the implants. Considering the modest survival rates, the clinical indication of either treatment option needs to be carefully evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01649531)

OBJECTIVE To systematically review the dental literature for clinical studies reporting on production time, effectiveness and/or costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic electronic search for clinical studies from 1990 until June 2020 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Time required for the computer-aided design (CAD) process, the CAM process, and the delivery of the CAD-CAM prostheses were extracted. In addition, articles reporting on the effectiveness and the costs of both manufacturing technologies were included. RESULTS Nine clinical studies were included reporting on subtractive CAM (s-CAM; 8 studies) and additive CAM (a-CAM; 1 study). Eight studies reported on the s-CAM of prosthetic and auxiliary components for single implant crowns. One study applied a-CAM for the fabrication of an implant bar prototype. Time was provided for the CAD process of implant models (range 4.9-11.8 min), abutments (range 19.7-32.7 min) and crowns (range 11.1-37.6 min). The time for s-CAM of single implant crown components (abutment/crown) ranged between 8.2 and 25 min. Post-processing (e.g. sintering) was a time-consuming process (up to 530 min). At delivery, monolithic/veneered CAD-CAM implant crowns resulted in additional adjustments chairside (51%/93%) or labside (11%/19%). CONCLUSIONS No scientific evidence exists on production time, effectiveness and costs of digital workflows comparing s-CAM and a-CAM. For both technologies, post-processing may substantially contribute to the production time. Considering effectiveness, monolithic CAD-CAM implant crowns may be preferred compared to veneered CAD-CAM crowns.

OBJECTIVES To assess the osseointegration of calcium-coated (CS) and chemically modified, sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (MS) dental implants with a lack of primary mechanical stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighteen implants in CS and MS groups each were loosely placed in the mandible of six mongrel dogs and allowed to heal for 2, 4 and 8 weeks. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) and implant stability test (IST) values recorded periodically and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and the number of Haversian canals per 1 mm$^{2}$ measured histologically were statistically analysed (p < .05). RESULTS All CS and MS implants placed survived. Compared with immediately after installation, ISQ and IST values in both groups increased significantly to over 76 at 2 weeks (p < .0083) and remained stable thereafter. BIC was significantly greater at 8 weeks (61.3 ± 13.6% in CS group; 57.6 ± 5.9% in MS group) compared to 2 and 4 weeks in both groups (p < .017). There were no significant intergroup differences in ISQ, IST or BIC at different time points. Significantly more Haversian canals were observed in group CS (6.2 ± 1.0/mm$^{2}$ ) compared with group MS at 4 weeks (3.7 ± 1.8 /mm$^{2}$ ; p < .05), while intergroup difference was not significant at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION Both CS and MS implants inserted without primary stability obtained osseointegration within 2 weeks, and lamellar bone adjacent to the implants was first observed at 8 weeks. The formation of primary osteons was more active at 4 weeks in group CS than in group MS.

OBJECTIVES The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions. RESULTS The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs. CONCLUSIONS Soft tissue augmentation procedures

AIM To compare late implant placement following alveolar ridge preservation (LP/ARP) and early implantation (EP) in periodontally compromised non-molar extraction sites with respect to soft tissue levels, esthetics, and patient-reported outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixteen patients were randomly allocated to groups LP/ARP (n = 9) or EP (n = 7). Group LP/ARP received ARP using deproteinized bovine bone mineral containing 10% collagen and a native bilayer collagen membrane, and group EP received only extraction. Implant placement was performed 4-8 weeks post-extraction in group EP and 4 months post-alveolar ridge preservation in group LP/ARP. The soft tissue levels, pink/white esthetic scores, and periodontal parameters were evaluated 1-year post-loading. Patient's discomfort level was evaluated at the time of extraction/ARP and implant placement. RESULTS No implant failure or biologic complications occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the median change of the midfacial mucosal margin (0.03 for group LP/ARP, -0.19 mm for group EP) and the mesial/distal papilla (0.62/0.25 mm for group LP/ARP, 0.29/-0.5 mm for group EP), pink/white esthetic scores, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort between the two groups. CONCLUSION Both implant placement protocols led to comparable outcomes in soft tissue levels, periodontal parameters, and patient's discomfort level.

AIM To investigate the effect of three treatment modalities on the gain of keratinized tissue (KT) at tooth and implant sites in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS In five dogs, the distal roots of the mandibular second, third and fourth premolars were extracted, while the mesial roots were maintained. After 2 months of healing, implants were placed with KT excision. After another 2 months of healing, free gingival grafts, collagen-based matrices and apically positioned flap only were applied. The height of KT was measured during implant placement, immediately before soft-tissue grafting and after 10, 30 and 60 days. RESULTS Two months after KT excision, spontaneous KT regrowth was greater at tooth sites than at implant sites (median, 2.0 mm vs. 1.1 mm). The outcomes of soft-tissue grafting at implant sites favoured the free gingival graft treatment, with a greater final median height (5.0-5.5 mm) and increase in KT (4.0-4.2 mm). Locations of the recipient sites significantly influenced KT regeneration at both tooth and implant sites. CONCLUSIONS At implant sites, the free gingival graft treatment led to higher KT regeneration. At tooth sites, however, the differences between the three treatment modalities seemed clinically irrelevant.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to examine the local tissue reactions associated with 3 different poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) prototype membranes and to compare them to the reactions associated with commercially available resorbable membranes in rats. METHODS Seven different membranes-3 synthetic PLGA prototypes (T1, T2, and T3) and 4 commercially available membranes (a PLGA membrane, a poly[lactic acid] membrane, a native collagen membrane, and a cross-linked collagen membrane)-were randomly inserted into 6 unconnected subcutaneous pouches in the backs of 42 rats. The animals were sacrificed at 4, 13, and 26 weeks. Descriptive histologic and histomorphometric assessments were performed to evaluate membrane degradation, visibility, tissue integration, tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, encapsulation, and inflammation. Means and standard deviations were calculated. RESULTS The histological analysis revealed complete integration and tissue ingrowth of PLGA prototype T1 at 26 weeks. In contrast, the T2 and T3 prototypes displayed slight to moderate integration and tissue ingrowth regardless of time point. The degradation patterns of the 3 synthetic prototypes were similar at 4 and 13 weeks, but differed at 26 weeks. T1 showed marked degradation at 26 weeks, whereas T2 and T3 displayed moderate degradation. Inflammatory cells were present in all 3 prototype membranes at all time points, and these membranes did not meaningfully differ from commercially available membranes with regard to the extent of inflammatory cell infiltration. CONCLUSIONS The 3 PLGA prototypes, particularly T1, induced favorable tissue integration, exhibited a similar degradation rate to native collagen membranes, and elicited a similar inflammatory response to commercially available non-cross-linked resorbable membranes. The intensity of inflammation associated with degradable dental membranes appears to relate to their degradation kinetics, irrespective of their material compositi

Objectives: To compare two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing in terms of soft tissue thickness, contour changes, and soft tissue handling two months after tooth extraction. Methods: Thirty-six patients were included with buccal bone plate dehiscences of up to 50% after single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone. They were randomly assigned to receive one of three procedures: a deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered with a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C alone, or spontaneous healing (SH). Two months later, the status of soft tissue healing was assessed, and the thickness of the mucosa was measured at the center of the site. Thereafter, implants were placed and the need for further guided bone regeneration (GBR) to cover exposed implant surfaces was assessed. Results: Thirty-six patients were evaluated at the day of implant placement. An invagination of the soft tissues was recorded in 41.7% (n = 12), 53.8% (n = 13), and 90.9% (n = 11) of the sites in groups DBBM-C/CM, DBBM-C, and SH, respectively. The median thickness of the mucosa measured was 3.0 mm in group DBBM-C/CM, 2.1 mm in group DBBM-C, and 1.5 mm in group SH. Additional GBR was necessary in 66.7% (n = 12), 53.8% (n = 13), and 90.9% (n = 11) of the sites in groups DBBM-C/CM, DBBM-C, and SH, respectively. Conclusions: The present explorative study revealed slight tendencies for more favorable soft tissue conditions with less invaginations as well as increased soft tissue volume and thickness in groups having received an alveolar ridge preservation procedure compared to spontaneously healed sites at 8 weeks of healing. Keywords: alveolar ridge preservation; dental implant; early implant placement; soft tissue healing. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Background: To assess the soft tissue dimension following tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior maxilla compared to spontaneous healing. Methods: Thirty-five patients randomly assigned to alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and spontaneous healing (SH) after maxillary molar extraction. The crestal, buccal, and palatal gingival thickness at 6 months was measured around virtually placed implant fixtures using superimposed cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scan taken at 6 months. Buccal mucogingival junction (MGJ) level change over 6 months was estimated using intraoral scans obtained at suture-removal and 6 months. Results: The crestal gingiva was significantly thinner in group ARP (−1.16 mm) compared to group SH (p < 0.05). The buccal and palatal gingiva was significantly thinner at the implant shoulder (IS) level in group ARP (buccal: −0.75 mm; palatal: −0.85 mm) compared to group SH (p < 0.05). The thickness at 2 mm below the IS of both sides and the buccal MGJ level change were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: ARP in the posterior maxilla resulted in a thinner soft tissue on top of and at the prospective level of the implant shoulder at 6 months. The buccal MGJ level changed minimal for 6 months in both groups.

AIM To assess mid-term clinical, radiographic and profilometric outcomes at implant sites, previously grafted with a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). METHODS VCMX or SCTG were randomly applied to single implant sites in 20 patients. Following abutment connection and insertion of final reconstructions (baseline), patients were re-examined at 6 months (6M), at 1 year (FU-1) and at 3 years (FU-3). Measurements included the following: clinical data, radiographic measurement of first bone to implant contact (fBIC), soft tissue thickness and volumetric outcomes. Non-parametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.5 mm (Q1: -0.5; Q3: 1.25) (VCMX) (p = .281) and by 0.8 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 2.5) (SCTG) (p = .047) between BL and FU-3 (intergroup p = .303). The profilometric changes of the buccal soft tissues demonstrated a median decrease between BL and FU-3 of -0.2 mm (Q1: -0.5; Q3: -0.1) (p = .039) for VCMX and a decrease of -0.1 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 0.1) (p = .020) for SCTG, respectively (intergroup p = .596). Peri-implant soft tissues and bone levels remained healthy throughout the entire study period. PROMs did not show any significant differences between the groups nor significant changes over time. CONCLUSION Minimal changes of the peri-implant tissue contour as well as of the soft tissue thickness were observed at implant sites previously grafted with VCMX or SCTG.

Objectives: To determine the volume stability of a sinus augmented with a collagenated bovine bone mineral (CBBM) in case of an intact or perforated Schneiderian membrane (SM). Materials and methods: A bilateral sinus augmentation procedure was performed in eight rabbits. The SM was intentionally perforated in one side (SMP group), while it remained intact in contra-lateral side (control group) and the same amount of CBBM was then grafted. At 12 weeks, the animals were euthanized for radiographic and histomorphometric analyses. Results: The augmented volume did not differ significantly between the two groups: 262.2 ± 32.1 mm3 in SMP group and 261.9 ± 48.5 mm3 in the control group (p = .959). There was no significant difference in the total augmented area: 24.7 ± 5.2 mm2 in SMP group and 23.2 ± 2.9 mm2 in the control group (p = .773). The areas of newly formed bone also did not differ significantly between the two groups, but was significantly lower at the centre of the augmented region than in the region of the surgical window in both groups (p < .05). Conclusion: A perforation of the SM in a rabbit model does neither impact the augmented volume nor new bone formation following grafting of the sinus with a CBBM. Keywords: Schneiderian membrane; animal study; volume stability; xenograft. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Gingival cells of the oral connective tissue are exposed to complex mechanical forces during mastication, speech, tooth movement and orthodontic treatments. Especially during wound healing following surgical procedures, internal and external forces may occur, creating pressure upon the newly formed tissue. This clinical situation has to be considered when developing biomaterials to augment soft tissue in the oral cavity. In order to pre-evaluate a collagen sponge intended to serve as a substitute for autogenous connective tissue grafts (CTGs), a dynamic bioreactor system was developed. Pressure and shear forces can be applied in this bioreactor in addition to a constant medium perfusion to cell-material constructs. Three-dimensional volume changes and stiffness of the matrices were analyzed. In addition, cell responses such as cell vitality and extracellular matrix (ECM) production were investigated. The number of metabolic active cells constantly increased under fully dynamic culture conditions. The sponges remained elastic even after mechanical forces were applied for 14 days. Analysis of collagen type I and fibronectin revealed a statistically significant accumulation of these ECM molecules (P < 0.05-0.001) when compared to static cultures. An increased expression of tenascin-c, indicating tissue remodeling processes, was observed under dynamic conditions only. The results indicate that the tested in vitro cell culture system was able to mimic both the biological and mechanical environments of the clinical situation in a healing wound.

OBJECTIVES Compare clinical outcomes of two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions loaded with fixed implant-borne reconstructions at 5 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 64 patients, one of two implant systems (S1, S2) was randomly used to support fixed dental prostheses (FDP). At loading (T$_{L}$ ), after 1 (T$_{1}$ ), 3 (T$_{3}$ ) and 5 years (T$_{5}$ ), the implant and reconstruction survival, biological and technical complications, radiographic marginal bone levels, clinical outcomes were recorded. The implants of the groups S1 and S2 contained of two-piece titanium implants with a non-matching implant-abutment junction. Data were analyzed on the patient level (1 implant/patient) using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS Ninety-seven implants were placed and loaded with fixed reconstructions in 64 patients. At T$_{5}$ , 29 S1 and 28 S2 implants were available for the patient-level analysis. Two implants in group S1 had to be removed in the same patient due to severe peri-implantitis, resulting in a survival rate of 96.1% on the implant level and 96.6% on the patient level. No implant in group S2 was lost. The technical complication rate on patient-level amounted of 24.2% (S1) and of 6.5% (S2) (p > .05). Biological complications on patient-level were observed in 15.2% (S1) and 16.1% (S2) (p > .05). From TL to T5, the medians of the mean marginal bone level changes wer a gain of 0.15 mm in group S1 and a loss of 0.14 mm in group S2 (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Both implant systems revealed high survival rates and minimal changes of the marginal bone levels during 5 years. Few biological complications occurred in both groups. S1 revealed a high rate of technical complications. Therefore, both implant systems can be recommended for fixed reconstructions.

Purpose To evaluate the effects of intra-alveolar socket grafting, subepithelial connective tissue grafts, and individualized abutments on peri-implant hard and soft tissue outcomes following immediate implant placement. Methods This randomized experimental study employed 5 mongrel dogs, with 4 sites per dog (total of 20 sites). The mesial roots of P3 and P4 were extracted in each hemimandible and immediate dental implants were placed. Each site was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 different treatment groups: standardized healing abutment (control group), alloplastic bone substitute material (BSS) + standardized healing abutment (SA group), BSS + individualized healing abutment (IA group), and BSS + individualized healing abutment + a subepithelial connective tissue graft (IAG group). Clinical, histological, and profilometric analyses were performed. The intergroup differences were calculated using the Bonferroni test, setting statistical significance at <0.05. Results Clinically, the control and SA groups demonstrated a coronal shift in the buccal height of the mucosa (0.88±0.48 mm and 0.37±1.1 mm, respectively). The IA and IAG groups exhibited an apical shift of the mucosa (-0.7±1.15 mm and -1.1±0.96 mm, respectively). Histologically, the SA and control groups demonstrated marginal mucosa heights of 4.1±0.28 mm and 4.0±0.53 mm relative to the implant shoulder, respectively. The IA and IAG groups, in contrast, only showed a height of 2.6 mm. In addition, the height of the mucosa in relation to the most coronal buccal bone crest or bone substitute particles was not significantly different among the groups. Volumetrically, the IA group (-0.73±0.46 mm) lost less volume on the buccal side than the control (-0.93±0.44 mm), SA (-0.97±0.73 mm), and IAG (-0.88±0.45 mm) groups. Conclusions The control group demonstrated the most favorable change of height of the margo mucosae and the largest dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissues. However, the addition of a bone substitute

OBJECTIVES To analyze the evidence regarding the efficacy of lateral bone augmentation procedures in terms of defect resolution in cases of horizontal ridge deficiencies after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS Included studies met the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCT's), re-entry procedure to assess defect resolution, minimum of 10 patients (5 per group). Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible, including subgroup analysis based on membranes and grafting materials. RESULTS Twenty-eight publications (20 short-term, 8 follow-up studies) were included. The most often used type of intervention was a xenogeneic particulated grafting material (XE) and a resorbable collagen membrane (CM). The mean defect height at baseline amounted to 5.1 mm (range 2.4 - 7.8) and decreased to a mean of 0.9 mm (range 0.2 - 2.2) at re-entry, and the mean defect resolution was 81.3% (range 56.4% - 97.1%). Defect height reduction was not significantly different using CM +XE as control treatment compared to the combined data of the respective test groups [n=11; weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.006mm; 95% CI, -0.61, 0.60; p=0.985]. The absence of any lateral bone augmentation was less favorable than the conjunction of a membrane and a bone grafting material (n=1; MD = -1.96mm; 95% CI, -3.48, -0.44; p=0.011). The lack of a grafting material was less favorable than the conjunction of grafting material and membrane (n=1; MD = -2.44mm; 95% CI, -4.53, -0.35; p=0.022) and the addition of a membrane compared to a grafting material alone was more favorable (n=3; WMD = 0.97mm; 95% CI, 0.31, 1.64; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS Lateral bone augmentation is a successful treatment modality. For optimal defect height reduction, a barrier membrane and a grafting material should be combined. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Gingival cells of the oral connective tissue are exposed to complex mechanical forces during mastication, speech, tooth movement and orthodontic treatments. Especially during wound healing following surgical procedures, internal and external forces may occur, creating pressure upon the newly formed tissue. This clinical situation has to be considered when developing biomaterials to augment soft tissue in the oral cavity. In order to pre-evaluate a collagen sponge intended to serve as a substitute for autogenous connective tissue grafts (CTGs), a dynamic bioreactor system was developed. Pressure and shear forces can be applied in this bioreactor in addition to a constant medium perfusion to cell-material constructs. Three-dimensional volume changes and stiffness of the matrices were analyzed. In addition, cell responses such as cell vitality and extracellular matrix (ECM) production were investigated. The number of metabolic active cells constantly increased under fully dynamic culture conditions. The sponges remained elastic even after mechanical forces were applied for 14 days. Analysis of collagen type I and fibronectin revealed a statistically significant accumulation of these ECM molecules (P < 0.05-0.001) when compared to static cultures. An increased expression of tenascin-c, indicating tissue remodeling processes, was observed under dynamic conditions only. The results indicate that the tested in vitro cell culture system was able to mimic both the biological and mechanical environments of the clinical situation in a healing wound.