Scholarlink

<p>Peri-implant soft tissue augmentation is a critical procedure in dental implant therapy. Free gingival graft (FGG) and collagen matrix (CM) are commonly used methods for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation, yet the comparative clinical outcomes remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of FGG versus CM in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation through a meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: 23–205). Literature searches were performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, the cochrane library (incorporating the cochrane central register of controlled trials), embase, MEDLINE, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and specialized oral health databases (<i>e.g.,</i> the database of reviews of effectiveness and the cochrane oral health group trials register). The quality of non-randomized prospective studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Nine studies were included. The FGG group significantly outperformed the CM group in keratinized mucosa width (KMW), gain in KMW, and keratinized mucosa thickness, while exhibiting significantly lower probing depth (all <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05). Negligible differences were observed in KMW shrinkage rate or gingival index (both <i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). Certain indicators exhibited heterogeneity and potential publication bias, though sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the primary outcomes. FGG demonstrates superior efficacy in enhancing peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and improving peri-implant tissue health, whereas CM holds alternative value in minimally invasive applications and specific scenarios. Clinical selection should be based on comprehensive patient-specific considerations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Clinical efficacy of free gingival graft versus collagen matrix for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月20日

查看全文
  • Yuyu Liu,
  • Jing Qu,
  • Jiaxiong Zheng

摘要

Peri-implant soft tissue augmentation is a critical procedure in dental implant therapy. Free gingival graft (FGG) and collagen matrix (CM) are commonly used methods for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation, yet the comparative clinical outcomes remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of FGG versus CM in peri-implant soft tissue augmentation through a meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration number: 23–205). Literature searches were performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, the cochrane library (incorporating the cochrane central register of controlled trials), embase, MEDLINE, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and specialized oral health databases (e.g., the database of reviews of effectiveness and the cochrane oral health group trials register). The quality of non-randomized prospective studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Nine studies were included. The FGG group significantly outperformed the CM group in keratinized mucosa width (KMW), gain in KMW, and keratinized mucosa thickness, while exhibiting significantly lower probing depth (all P < 0.05). Negligible differences were observed in KMW shrinkage rate or gingival index (both P > 0.05). Certain indicators exhibited heterogeneity and potential publication bias, though sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the primary outcomes. FGG demonstrates superior efficacy in enhancing peri-implant soft tissue dimensions and improving peri-implant tissue health, whereas CM holds alternative value in minimally invasive applications and specific scenarios. Clinical selection should be based on comprehensive patient-specific considerations.