Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42740463
Autogenous grafts versus substitute scaffolds for soft tissue augmentation in implant therapy: A systematic review.
Avila-Ortiz Gustavo, Stuhr Sandra, Pirc Miha, et al. · Journal of periodontology · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.1002/jper.70104
Findings
69 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.09 [-0.38, 0.57] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Allogeneic dermal matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.00 [-0.55, 0.56] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Allogeneic dermal matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Indirect estimate | MD 0.34 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.28 [-0.60, 1.15] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.66 [0.35, 0.97] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Guided bone regeneration (GBR) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.77 [0.02, 1.52] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.68 [0.35, 1.00] GRADE not reported 7 studies |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Indirect estimate | MD 0.39 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Allogeneic dermal matrix | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.50 [-0.11, 1.11] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.89 [0.13, 1.64] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Allogeneic dermal matrix | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Indirect estimate | MD 0.67 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.18 [-0.76, 1.13] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.56 [0.08, 1.05] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Guided bone regeneration | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.77 [0.02, 1.52] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Guided bone regeneration (GBR) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.68 [-0.21, 1.57] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.79 [-0.10, 1.68] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.38 [-0.44, 1.20] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | No soft tissue augmentation | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.38 [-0.44, 1.20] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · After implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.17 [-0.18, 0.52] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | Guided bone regeneration (GBR) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.49 [-0.66, 1.65] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · At implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 0.89 [0.13, 1.64] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · After implant placement; Network meta-analysis (supplementary reported value) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | MD 0.19 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Connective tissue graft | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · After implant placement; Direct pairwise meta-analysis (supplementary reported value) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | MD 0.19 GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.61 [-0.54, 1.76] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | No soft tissue augmentation | Guided bone regeneration (GBR) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.11 [-0.70, 0.93] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | No soft tissue augmentation | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.23 [-0.59, 1.04] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation at the time of implant placement | Guided bone regeneration (GBR) | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.12 [-0.95, 1.18] GRADE not reported 14 studies · 445 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.17 [-0.18, 0.52] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.30 [0.17, 0.43] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.30 [0.17, 0.43] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · After implant placement; Network meta-analysis (supplementary reported value) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | MD 0.11 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Concentrated growth factor graft (CGFG) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.33 [0.15, 0.51] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Concentrated growth factor graft (CGFG) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.33 [0.15, 0.51] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.13 [-0.24, 0.50] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix | Concentrated growth factor graft | Mucosal thickness change 6–12 months · After implant placement; Network meta-analysis (supplementary reported value) Unresolved: the two extractors disagree on this row. | MD 0.14 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Volume-stable xenogeneic collagen matrix (VXCM) | Concentrated growth factor graft (CGFG) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.16 [-0.23, 0.55] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Apically positioned flap plus free mucosal graft | Apically positioned flap plus xenogeneic collagen matrix | Keratinized mucosa width change 6–12 months · After implant placement; KMW model 1; Direct pairwise meta-analysis | MD 1.87 [0.84, 2.91] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Concentrated growth factor graft (CGFG) | Mucosal thickness (MT) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.03 [-0.19, 0.25] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 214 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 1.87 [0.84, 2.91] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 2.48 [-0.98, 5.93] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 2.73 [0.11, 5.34] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 3.09 [1.10, 5.08] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 3.05 [1.25, 4.84] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus free mucosal graft (APF+FMG) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 3.37 [-0.11, 6.84] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.60 [-2.85, 4.05] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Apically positioned flap plus free mucosal graft | Apically positioned flap | Keratinized mucosa width change 6–12 months · After implant placement; KMW model 1; Indirect estimate | MD 2.86 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.85 [-1.76, 3.46] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Apically positioned flap plus xenogeneic collagen matrix | Apically positioned flap | Keratinized mucosa width change 6–12 months · After implant placement; KMW model 1; Indirect estimate | MD 1.37 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 1.13 [-0.82, 3.08] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 1.17 [-0.61, 2.95] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | APF plus xenogeneic collagen matrix (APF+XCM) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 1.49 [-1.98, 4.96] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.25 [-2.00, 2.50] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.25 [-2.00, 2.50] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.57 [-2.38, 3.52] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.89 [-1.14, 2.92] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar xenogeneic dermal/collagen matrix (XDM) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.89 [-1.14, 2.92] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.32 [-1.59, 2.23] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.32 [-1.59, 2.23] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.64 [-1.64, 2.92] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Bilaminar connective tissue graft (CTG) | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.64 [-1.64, 2.92] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 1) | Apically positioned flap (APF) alone | No soft tissue augmentation | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.32 [-2.66, 3.30] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 198 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 2, non-submerged approaches) | Free mucosal graft (FMG) | Strip FMG plus XCM | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.23 [-0.17, 0.63] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 2, non-submerged approaches) | Free mucosal graft (FMG) | Strip FMG plus XCM | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.23 [-0.17, 0.63] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 66 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 2, non-submerged approaches) | Free mucosal graft (FMG) | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.99 [0.70, 1.28] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 66 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 2, non-submerged approaches) | Free mucosal graft (FMG) | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.99 [0.70, 1.28] GRADE not reported 1 study |
| Adults with mucosal deficiencies undergoing implant therapy | Substitute scaffold combined with biologics | Autogenous soft tissue graft | Soft tissue augmentation outcomes | no estimate extracted No studies found 0 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 2, non-submerged approaches) | Strip FMG plus XCM | Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.76 [0.27, 1.25] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 66 participants |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 3, non-submerged approaches) | Connective tissue graft (CTG) | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Direct estimate | MD 0.18 [-0.25, 0.62] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Adult implant patients with soft tissue augmentation after implant placement to gain keratinized mucosa (Model 3, non-submerged approaches) | Connective tissue graft (CTG) | Bilayer xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) | Keratinized mucosa width (KMW) change (mm) 6 to 12 months · Network estimate (NMA) | MD 0.18 [-0.25, 0.62] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 42 participants |
Included primary studies 44
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cairo 2017 Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus connective tissue graft for buccal soft tissue augmentation at implant site. A randomized, controlled… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.12750 | 2017 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Clem 2024 Harvest graft substitute for soft tissue volume augmentation around existing implants: A randomized, controlled and blinded multicenter… DOI:10.1002/jper.23-0305 | 2023 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hamdy 2024 Volumetric assessment of volume stable collagen matrix in maxillary single implant site development: A randomized controlled clinical trial DOI:10.1111/cid.13353 | 2024 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Abdelwahab 2023 Soft tissue esthetics around immediately provisionalized delayed implants with and without connective tissue graft: A randomized clinical… DOI:10.1111/cid.13168 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cheruvu 2023 Evaluation of soft tissue and crestal bone changes around non-submerged implants with and without a platelet-rich fibrin membrane: A… DOI:10.17219/dmp/150408 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| D'Elia 2017 Peri-implant Soft Tissue Stability After Single Implant Restorations Using Either Guided Bone Regeneration or a Connective Tissue Graft: A… DOI:10.11607/prd.2747 | 2017 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Huang 2021 Clinical evaluation of xenogeneic collagen matrix versus free gingival grafts for keratinized mucosa augmentation around dental implants:… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13518 | 2021 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Kassis 2024 The Effect of Connective Tissue Graft Compared to Concentrated Growth Factor Graft on Buccal Peri-Implant Gingival Thickness: A 12-month… DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2024.02.005 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Lazzari 2022 Single implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic area with or without connective tissue grafting: A 1-year follow-up randomised… PMID:35266669 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Lee 2023 Clinical efficacy of soft‐tissue augmentation on tissue preservation at immediate implant sites: A randomized controlled trial DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13816 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Qiu 2023 Xenogeneic collagen matrix versus free gingival graft for augmenting keratinized mucosa around posterior mandibular implants: a randomized… DOI:10.1007/s00784-022-04853-8 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ramanauskaite 2023 Three-dimensional changes of a porcine collagen matrix and free gingival grafts for soft tissue augmentation to increase the width of… DOI:10.1186/s40729-023-00482-2 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Surdiacourt 2025 A multi‐centre randomized controlled trial comparing connective tissue graft with collagen matrix to increase soft tissue thickness at the… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13975 | 2024 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tarasenko 2020 DOI:10.3290/j.qi.a44216 | NR | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Tavelli 2023 Coronally advanced flap versus tunnel technique for the treatment of peri‐implant soft tissue dehiscences with the connective tissue… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13806 | 2023 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Wiesner 2010 Connective tissue grafts for thickening peri-implant tissues at implant placement. One-year results from an explanatory split-mouth… PMID:20467596 | 2010 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Al-Tarawneh 2024 Comparing Single Tooth Implant Placement With and Without Allogenic Soft Tissue Augmentation. A Randomized Clinical Trial DOI:10.11607/jomi.10690 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Baldi 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| BaldiN 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Basegmez 2013 The comparison of acellular dermal matrix allografts with free gingival grafts in the augmentation of peri-implant attached mucosa: a… PMID:23926586 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| BasegmezC 2013 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bouckaert 2022 A randomized controlled trial comparing guided bone regeneration to connective tissue graft to re‐establish buccal convexity at dental… DOI:10.1111/clr.13906 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Cosyn 2024 A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Timing of Soft‐Tissue Augmentation in Immediate Implant Placement: Hard‐Tissue Changes and Clinical… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.14060 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Farooqui 2023 Augmentation of Peri-implant Keratinized Mucosa Using a Combination of Free Gingival Graft Strip with Xenogeneic Collagen Matrix or Free… DOI:10.11607/jomi.9766 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fawzy 2023 Evaluation of esthetic outcome of delayed implants with de-epithelialized free gingival graft in thin gingival phenotype with or without… DOI:10.1186/s40729-023-00468-0 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Fernandes 2023 Volumetric analysis on the use of customized healing abutments with or without connective tissue graft at flapless maxillary immediate… DOI:10.1111/clr.14119 | 2023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Guglielmi 2022 Soft and hard tissue changes after immediate implant placement with or without a sub‐epithelial connective tissue graft: Results from a… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13685 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Hehn 2016 The effect of PRF (platelet-rich fibrin) inserted with a split-flap technique on soft tissue thickening and initial marginal bone loss… DOI:10.1186/s40729-016-0044-4 | 2016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Jiang 2020 Hard and soft tissue alterations during the healing stage of immediate implant placement and provisionalization with or without connective… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13331 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| LazzariTR 2022 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Lorenzo 2012 Clinical efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix in augmenting keratinized mucosa around implants: a randomized controlled prospective… DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02260.x | 2011 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Padhye 2020 Buccally displaced flap versus sub-epithelial connective tissue graft for peri-implant soft tissue augmentation: a pilot double-blind… DOI:10.1186/s40729-020-00244-4 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Panwar 2022 Comparison of acellular dermal matrix allografts and connective tissue autografts in soft-tissue augmentation around immediate implants: A… DOI:10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.11.029 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Puisys 2022 Connective tissue graft vs porcine collagen matrix after immediate implant placement in esthetic area: A randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1111/cid.13058 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Puisys 2024 Clinical efficacy of two vertical soft tissue augmentation techniques for peri‐implant crestal bone level stability: A randomized clinical… DOI:10.1111/cid.13365 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Rojo 2020 Soft tissue stability around dental implants after soft tissue grafting from the lateral palate or the tuberosity area – A randomized… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13292 | 2020 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Sanz 2009 Clinical evaluation of a new <i>collagen matrix</i> (Mucograft <sup>®</sup> prototype) to enhance the width of keratinized tissue in… DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01460.x | 2009 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Solderer 2024 Influence of an allogenic collagen scaffold on implant sites with thin supracrestal tissue height: a randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1007/s00784-024-05716-0 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Thoma 2023 Soft tissue augmentation with a volume‐stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft at implant sites: Five‐year results… DOI:10.1002/jper.22-0226 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| van Nimwegen 2018 Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1‐year… DOI:10.1111/clr.13258 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| WiesnerG 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Yoshino 2014 Effects of Connective Tissue Grafting on the Facial Gingival Level Following Single Immediate Implant Placement and Provisionalization in… DOI:10.11607/jomi.3379 | 2014 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zuiderveld 2018 The influence of different soft‐tissue grafting procedures at single implant placement on esthetics: A randomized controlled trial DOI:10.1002/jper.18-0061 | 2018 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Zuiderveld 2024 Single immediate implant placement in the maxillary aesthetic zone with and without connective tissue grafting: Results of a 5‐year… DOI:10.1111/jcpe.13918 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adult patients with soft tissue deficiencies undergoing augmentation at the time of or after implant placement | Adult implant patients (1293 patients in 40 RCTs; 28 RCTs in network meta-analyses) |
| Intervention | Autogenous grafts (FMG, CTG) or substitute scaffolds (allogeneic or xenogeneic) with or without biologics | CTG, FMG, ADM, XCM, VXCM, xenogeneic dermal matrix, PRF, CGFG, GBR, APF |
| Comparison | Any other intervention of interest or any control treatment | No soft tissue augmentation, APF alone, other grafts or scaffolds |
| Outcomes | KMW, MT, STH, marginal mucosa position, volume, implant survival, mucositis and peri-implantitis, marginal bone level, esthetics, complications, PROs/PREs | MT change (n=18 studies), KMW change (n=12), marginal mucosa position (n=9), STH (n=3), implant survival (n=20), marginal bone level (n=15), esthetics (n=20), PROs/PREs |
| Study designs | RCTs | 40 RCTs (n=40) |
| Timing | Follow-up of at least 6 months | 6 months to 5 years; network meta-analyses on 6 to 12 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | No | no |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |