Comparison of two approaches to rebuilding gum tissue around dental implants

Comparison of the peri-implant soft-tissue recession coverage and esthetic outcomes of two different approaches: xenogeneic collagen matrix (Geistlich Fibro-Gide®) and subepithelial connective tissue graft using the coronal advancement flap for the treatment of soft tissue recession

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN10502178

Enrollment

Registered

2022-02-22

Start date

2019-09-15

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2022-03-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Peri-implant soft tissue defects treatment Oral Health

Interventions

The study contains 15 patients with bilateral soft tissue recession peri-implant =2mm in one implant at least in the upper or lower jaw, therefore 30 affected sites will be treated Co

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients with bilateral soft tissue recession peri-implant =2mm 2. Thin gingival biotype 3. Age =20 years old 4. No probing depths =5mm 5. Healthy implants measured by the lack of periimplantitis and mucositis 6. Good oral hygiene

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Unstable systemic diseases 2. Compromised immune system 3. Unstable bleeding disorders 4. History of radiation or cancer in the oral cavity 5. Use of intra-venous bisphosphonate or steroid medication 6. Use of tobacco products (1/2 pack per day) 7. Pregnant or breastfeeding women 8. Previous mucogingival surgery or implant placement within the past 6 months 9. Bone defects requiring grafting 10. Bad oral hygiene

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Recession depth at 2 weeks, month, 3 months measured using a periodontal probe	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. Width and thickness of keratinized tissued measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 2. Percentage of implant coverage measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 3. Recession width measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 4. Color and texture of treatment sites, ‘‘equal or not equal to surrounding native tissue’’ through visual observation and palpation at 2 weeks, months, and 3 months. 5. Subject esthetic satisfaction, (‘‘unsatisfied’’ to ‘‘very satisfied’’) on a five-point scale at 3 months 6. Subject pain or discomfort (‘‘no pain’’ to ‘‘extreme pain’’) on 10-cm visual analog scales at 2 hours, 24hrs, 48hrs, 72hrs and 1 week.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Width and thickness of keratinized tissued measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 2. Percentage of implant coverage measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 3. Recession width measured using a periodontal probe at baseline and 3 months 4. Color and texture of treatment sites, ‘‘equal or not equal to surrounding native tissue’’ through visual observation and palpation at 2 weeks, months, and 3 months. 5. Subject esthetic satisfaction, (‘‘unsatisfied’’ to ‘‘very satisfied’’) on a five-point scale at 3 months 6. Subject pain or discomfort (‘‘no pain’’ to ‘‘extreme pain’’) on 10-cm visual analog scales at 2 hours, 24hrs, 48hrs, 72hrs and 1 week.

—

Countries

Syria

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026