Treatment of Small Peri‐Implant Buccal Dehiscence Defects With SCTG or GBR: 3‐Year Results of a Pilot Study
TL;DR
Both SCTG and GBR were associated with stable buccal contour conditions and favorable peri‐implant health over a 3‐year follow‐up period, and both augmentation approaches maintained stable buccal soft‐tissue contours.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate and compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) and guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri‐implant buccal bone dehiscences over a 3‐year follow‐up, in terms of profilometric contour change, peri‐implant parameters and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs). Material and Methods Patients presenting with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤ 3 mm) after single implant placement were included. Defect sites were randomly treated with either SCTG or GBR, while five patients without dehiscences served as a negative control group. All patients received an implant crown and were followed for 3 years. Profilometric measurements, marginal bone levels, peri‐implant parameters, and PROMs were recorded at baseline, 1, and 3 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results A total of 16 patients were available for the 3‐year follow‐up (SCTG, n = 5; GBR, n = 6; negative control, n = 5). Both augmentation approaches maintained stable buccal soft‐tissue contours. At 1 mm below the mucosal margin, the median buccal contour change was 0.19 mm (Q1: −0.28; Q3: 0.29) in the SCTG group and 0.11 mm (Q1: −0.20; Q3: 0.30) in the GBR group. At 3 mm below the mucosal margin, the corresponding median contour changes were 0.05 mm (Q1: −0.36; Q3: 0.31) for SCTG and −0.05 mm (Q1: −0.22; Q3: 0.07) for GBR. Peri‐implant clinical parameters (probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque) remained stable, indicating maintained peri‐implant health in both groups. Marginal bone levels were preserved throughout the observation period and oral health‐related quality of life remained high and comparable between the SCTG and GBR groups. Conclusion Within the limitations of this pilot study, both SCTG and GBR were associated with stable buccal contour conditions and favorable peri‐implant health over a 3‐year follow‐up period. These findings were observed under adequate self‐performed plaque control and adherence to supportive care. Adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.