Study
Puisys A, Deikuviene J, Vindasiute-Narbute E, Razukevicus D, Zvirblis T, Linkevicius T. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Apr;24(2):141-150.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324053/
Objective: Assessment of mucoderm® for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation
The goal of the study was to assess the efficacy of mucoderm® for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation in terms of esthetics and clinical outcome (secondary objective) in comparison to the gold standard.
Analysis of esthetics and function in immediate implants
45 patients each with a failing anterior tooth were treated with an immediate implant. Bone to implant gaps were augmented using maxgraft® (allogeneic cancellous bone graft). 22 patients received a connective tissue graft (CTG) from the tuber, while the remaining 23 patients were treated with mucoderm®, both inserted into a subperiosteal buccal tunnel. Immediate temporary restoration was delivered and Pink Esthetic Score (PES) as the primary outcome parameter was evaluated 4- and 12 months post-surgery.
Esthetic and functional results
- Similar PES for both groups at 4 and 12 months with no statistically significant difference
- Similar PES after 4 and 12 months with no statistically significant difference
- Similar results for secondary outcome parameters except for crestal bone change mesially in favor of CTG
- 100% implant success rate over the whole follow-up period in both groups
Fig 1: The seven variables of the Pink Esthetic Score (PES)
| Variable | mucoderm® Mean (SD) | CTG Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| After 4 months | After 12 months | After 4 months | After 12 months | |
| 1. Papilla – M | 1.7 (0.45) | 1.7 (0.47) | 1.6 (0.58) | 1.7 (0.57) |
| 2. Papilla – D | 1.5 (0.51) | 1.6 (0.66) | 1.4 (0.58) | 1.5 (0.6) |
| 3. Tissue contours | 1.8 (0.42) | 1.8 (0.39) | 1.8 (0.43) | 1.9 (0.35) |
| 4. Gingival level | 1.9 (0.34) | 2 (0) | 2 (0) | 2 (0) |
| 5. Alveolar process deficiencies | 1.5 (0.51) | 1.5 (0.51) | 2 (0.21) | 2 (0.21) |
| 6. Coloring | 2 (0.21) | 1.8 (0.41) | 2 (0.21) | 2 (0.21) |
| 7. Texture | 1.7 (0.45) | 1.7 (0.45) | 1.8 (0.39) | 1.9 (0.29) |
| Total Mean | 12.1 (1.28) | 12.1 (1.39) | 12.5 (1.37) | 12.9 (1.27) |
Table 1 The PES was measured according to Fürhauser et al (2005) by evaluating seven variables (see also Fig 1), each of which receives 0, 1 or 2 points.
Conclusion
mucoderm® serves as a valid alternative for the patient’s own connective tissue as demonstrated by a comparable integration into the surrounding tissue with respect to colour and texture, leading to excellent esthetic results and stable clinical outcomes.
Clinical significance for soft tissue augmentation
Using mucoderm® instead of CTG reduces the number of surgical interventions, reduces pain and morbidity and leads to a shorter treatment time both associated with CTG harvesting.
