@article{FriedmannFicklFischeretal.2021,
  author    = {Friedmann, Anton and Fickl, Stefan and Fischer, Kai R. and Dalloul, Milad and Goetz, Werner and Kauffmann, Frederic},
  title     = {Horizontal augmentation of chronic mandibular defects by the Guided Bone Regeneration approach: a randomized study in dogs},
  series = {Materials},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {Materials},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {1996-1944},
  doi       = {10.3390/ma15010238},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252351},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Various biomaterial combinations have been studied focusing on their ability to stabilize blood clots and maintain space under soft tissue to support new bone formation. A popular combination is Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral (DBBM) placed with a native collagen membrane (NCM) tacked to native bone. In this study, we compared the outcome of this treatment option to those achieved with three different graft/membrane combinations with respect to total newly occupied area and the mineralized compound inside. After bi-lateral extraction of two mandibular premolars in five adult beagles L-shaped alveolar defects were created. A total of 20 defects healed for 6 weeks resulting in chronic type bone defects. At baseline, four options were randomly allocated to five defects each: a. DBBM + NCM with a four-pin fixation across the ridge; b. DBBM + RCLC (ribose cross-linked collagen membrane); c. DBBM + NPPM (native porcine pericardium membrane); and d. Ca-sulfate (CS) + RCLC membrane. Membranes in b/c/d were not fixed; complete tensionless wound closure was achieved by CAF. Termination after 3 months and sampling followed, and non-decalcified processing and toluidine blue staining were applied. Microscopic images obtained at standardized magnification were histomorphometrically assessed by ImageJ software (NIH). An ANOVA post hoc test was applied; histomorphometric data are presented in this paper as medians and interquartile ranges (IRs). All sites healed uneventfully, all sites were sampled and block separation followed before Technovit embedding. Two central sections per block for each group were included. Two of five specimen were lost due to processing error and were excluded from group b. New bone area was significantly greater for option b. compared to a. (p = 0.001), c. (p = 0.002), and d. (p = 0.046). Residual non-bone graft area was significantly less for option d. compared to a. (p = 0.026) or c. (p = 0.021). We conclude that collagen membranes with a prolonged resorption/barrier profile combined with bone substitutes featuring different degradation profiles sufficiently support new bone formation. Tacking strategy/membrane fixation appears redundant when using these biomaterials.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FicklThereseKroegerDietrichetal.2021,
  author    = {Fickl, Stefan and Therese Kr{\"o}ger, Annika and Dietrich, Thomas and Kebschull, Moritz},
  title     = {Influence of soft tissue augmentation procedures around dental implants on marginal bone level changes-A systematic review},
  series = {Clinical Oral Implants Research},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Clinical Oral Implants Research},
  number    = {S21},
  doi       = {10.1111/clr.13829},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-258394},
  pages     = {108-137},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Objectives This systematic review assessed the influence of soft tissue augmentation procedures on marginal bone level changes in partial or fully edentulous patients. Material and Methods We identified three relevant PICO questions related to soft tissue augmentation procedures and conducted a systematic search of four major electronic databases for clinical studies in systemically healthy patients receiving at least one dental implant and a minimum follow-up of one year after implant placement. The primary outcome was mean difference in marginal bone levels, and secondary outcomes were clinical and patient-related outcomes such as thickness of peri-implant mucosa, bleeding indices, and Pink Esthetic Score. Results We identified 20 publications reporting on 16 relevant comparisons. Studies varied considerably and thus only two meta-analyses could be performed. This systematic review showed that: Soft tissue augmentation either for augmentation of keratinized mucosa or soft tissue volume inconsistently had an effect on marginal bone level changes when compared to no soft tissue augmentation, but consistently improved secondary outcomes. The combination soft and hard tissue augmentation showed no statistically significant difference in terms of marginal bone level changes when compared to hard tissue augmentation alone, but resulted in less marginal soft tissue recession as shown by a meta-analysis. Soft or hard tissue augmentation performed as contour augmentations resulted in comparable marginal bone level changes. Conclusions Peri-implant soft and hard tissues seem to have a bidirectional relationship: "Bone stands hard, but soft tissue is the guard".},
  language  = {en}
}