Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
The effect of different soft-tissue management techniques for alveolar ridge preservation: a randomized controlled
Colline Papace1,2, Christopher Büsch3, Oliver Ristow1
1Department of Oral- and Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Purpose:
For alveolar ridge preservation, various treatment protocols have been described. While most studies focus on the effect of the bone graft material, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of different soft-tissue management techniques on the soft and hard tissue.
Methods:
A total of 20 maxillary extraction sockets were grafted with an anorganic xenogenic bone graft and then randomly treated with either a combined epithelialized-subepithelial connective tissue graft (CECG) or a porcine collagen matrix (CM) placed in labial and palatal tunnels. Measurements of soft-tissue thickness were performed at tooth extraction (T0), implant insertion (T1) and second stage surgery (T2).
Results:
In the CECG group, gingival thickness was 1.18 ± 0.56 mm (T0), 1.29 ± 0.26 mm (T1) and 1.2 ± 0.32 mm (T3). In the CM group, the measurements were 1.24 ± 0.50 mm (T0), 1.6 ± 0.6 mm (T1) and 1.7 ± 1.06 mm. Thus, there was an overall increase in gingival thickness from T0 to T2 of 0.02 ± 0.66 mm (CECG) compared to 0.46 ± 0.89 mm (CM). The thickness of keratinized soft-tissue was 3.91 ± 1.11 mm (CECG) and 4.76 ± 1.48 mm (CM) before extraction and 3.93 ± 1.17 mm (CECG) and 4.22 mm ± 1.26 mm (CM) at implant follow-up. Mean peri-implant probing depths were 3.15 ± 1.39 mm (CECG) and 3.41 ± 0.99 mm (CM).
Conclusions:
After ridge preservation, comparable soft-tissue parameters were observed in both groups, whether treated with a collagen matrix or a combined autologous connective tissue graft.
