Treatment of Small Peri-Implant Buccal Dehiscence Defects With SCTG or GBR: 3-Year Results of a Pilot Study.
Anina N Zuercher, Fabienne Rusch, Franz J Strauss et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This pilot randomized controlled trial compared subepithelial connective tissue grafting (SCTG) with guided bone regeneration (GBR) for small (≤ 3 mm) buccal bone dehiscences after single implant placement. Sixteen patients were available at 3 years: 5 treated with SCTG, 6 with GBR, and 5 without dehiscences as controls. Both augmentation approaches were associated with stable buccal soft-tissue contours and peri-implant clinical parameters. At 1 mm below the mucosal margin, median contour change was 0.19 mm with SCTG and 0.11 mm with GBR. Marginal bone levels were preserved, and oral health-related quality of life remained high and comparable.
Key findings
- At 1 mm below the mucosal margin, median buccal contour change was 0.19 mm (Q1: -0.28; Q3: 0.29) with SCTG and 0.11 mm (Q1: -0.20; Q3: 0.30) with GBR.
- At 3 mm below the mucosal margin, median contour change was 0.05 mm (Q1: -0.36; Q3: 0.31) with SCTG and -0.05 mm (Q1: -0.22; Q3: 0.07) with GBR.
- Probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque, and marginal bone levels remained stable over 3 years in both treatment groups.
- Oral health-related quality of life remained high and comparable between the SCTG and GBR groups.
Why it matters
Small peri-implant buccal dehiscences can raise concerns about contour stability and peri-implant health. These pilot findings suggest that both SCTG and GBR may maintain favorable conditions over 3 years when plaque control and supportive care are adequate. The results provide comparative clinical data, while the small study size means they should be interpreted as preliminary rather than evidence of equivalence.
What to keep in mind
This was a small pilot study with only 16 patients available at 3 years; data were analyzed descriptively. The authors state that adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed.