Treatment of Small Peri‐Implant Buccal Dehiscence Defects With SCTG or GBR : 3‐Year Results of a Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) and guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant buccal bone dehiscences over a 3-year follow-up, in terms of profilometric contour change, peri-implant parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients presenting with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤ 3 mm) after single implant placement were included. Defect sites were randomly treated with either SCTG or GBR, while five patients without dehiscences served as a negative control group. All patients received an implant crown and were followed for 3 years. Profilometric measurements, marginal bone levels, peri-implant parameters, and PROMs were recorded at baseline, 1, and 3 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were available for the 3-year follow-up (SCTG, n = 5; GBR, n = 6; negative control, n = 5). Both augmentation approaches maintained stable buccal soft-tissue contours. At 1 mm below the mucosal margin, the median buccal contour change was 0.19 mm (Q1: -0.28; Q3: 0.29) in the SCTG group and 0.11 mm (Q1: -0.20; Q3: 0.30) in the GBR group. At 3 mm below the mucosal margin, the corresponding median contour changes were 0.05 mm (Q1: -0.36; Q3: 0.31) for SCTG and -0.05 mm (Q1: -0.22; Q3: 0.07) for GBR. Peri-implant clinical parameters (probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque) remained stable, indicating maintained peri-implant health in both groups. Marginal bone levels were preserved throughout the observation period and oral health-related quality of life remained high and comparable between the SCTG and GBR groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this pilot study, both SCTG and GBR were associated with stable buccal contour conditions and favorable peri-implant health over a 3-year follow-up period. These findings were observed under adequate self-performed plaque control and adherence to supportive care. Adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.70192
Primary Topic
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Treatment of Small Peri‐Implant Buccal Dehiscence Defects With SCTG or GBR : 3‐Year Results of a Pilot Study

Franz Josef Strauß, Ronald E. Jung, Daniel Stefan Thoma, Hyun‐Chang Lim et al.
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
article

Treatment of Small Peri‐Implant Buccal Dehiscence Defects With SCTG or GBR : 3‐Year Results of a Pilot Study

Franz Josef Strauß, Ronald E. Jung, Daniel Stefan Thoma, Hyun‐Chang Lim, Anina Nives Zuercher, Fabienne Rusch
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTG) and guided bone regeneration (GBR) for the treatment of small peri-implant buccal bone dehiscences over a 3-year follow-up, in terms of profilometric contour change, peri-implant parameters and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients presenting with small buccal bone dehiscences (≤ 3 mm) after single implant placement were included. Defect sites were randomly treated with either SCTG or GBR, while five patients without dehiscences served as a negative control group. All patients received an implant crown and were followed for 3 years. Profilometric measurements, marginal bone levels, peri-implant parameters, and PROMs were recorded at baseline, 1, and 3 years. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were available for the 3-year follow-up (SCTG, n = 5; GBR, n = 6; negative control, n = 5). Both augmentation approaches maintained stable buccal soft-tissue contours. At 1 mm below the mucosal margin, the median buccal contour change was 0.19 mm (Q1: -0.28; Q3: 0.29) in the SCTG group and 0.11 mm (Q1: -0.20; Q3: 0.30) in the GBR group. At 3 mm below the mucosal margin, the corresponding median contour changes were 0.05 mm (Q1: -0.36; Q3: 0.31) for SCTG and -0.05 mm (Q1: -0.22; Q3: 0.07) for GBR. Peri-implant clinical parameters (probing depth, bleeding on probing, and plaque) remained stable, indicating maintained peri-implant health in both groups. Marginal bone levels were preserved throughout the observation period and oral health-related quality of life remained high and comparable between the SCTG and GBR groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this pilot study, both SCTG and GBR were associated with stable buccal contour conditions and favorable peri-implant health over a 3-year follow-up period. These findings were observed under adequate self-performed plaque control and adherence to supportive care. Adequately powered RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related ResearchVol. 28(6)
The University of Sydney (AU), Yonsei University (KR), University of Zurich (CH), Universidad Autónoma de Chile (CL), Kyung Hee University (KR), Kyung Hee University Medical Center (KR), Yonsei University Dental Hospital (KR), Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital (KR), Yonsei University College of Dentistry (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon