Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVallecillo, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorToledano Osorio, Manuel
dc.contributor.authorVallecillo Rivas, Marta
dc.contributor.authorToledano Pérez, Manuel 
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Archilla, Alberto 
dc.contributor.authorOsorio Ruiz, Raquel 
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-24T08:34:05Z
dc.date.available2021-06-24T08:34:05Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-31
dc.identifier.citationVallecillo, C... [et al.]. Collagen Matrix vs. Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2021, 13, 1810. [https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13111810]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10481/69377
dc.descriptionThis work was supported by: (1) the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and European Regional Development Fund [Project MAT2017-85999-P MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE], (2) University of Granada/Regional Government of Andalusia Research Fund from Spain and European Regional Development Fund (A-BIO-157-UGR-18/FEDER). This research is part of C.V.'s PhD research study.es_ES
dc.description.abstractSoft tissues have been shown to be critical for the maintenance of both teeth and implants. Currently, regenerative soft tissue techniques propose the use of collagen matrices, which can avoid the drawbacks derived from the obtainment of autogenous tissue graft. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to ascertain the efficacy of collagen matrices (CM) compared to autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) to improve soft tissue dimensions. An electronic and manual literature searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCT) or controlled clinical trials (CCT) that compared CTG and CM. Pooled data of width of keratinized tissue (KT) and mucosal thickness (MT) were collected and weighted means were calculated. Heterogeneity was determined using Higgins (I-2). If I-2 > 50% a random-effects model was applied. Nineteen studies were included based on the eligibility criteria. When using CTG a higher MT gain (0.32 mm, ranging from 0.49 to 0.16 mm) was obtained than when employing CM. Similar result was obtained for the width of KT gain, that was 0.46 mm higher (ranging from 0.89 to 0.02 mm) when employing CTG. However, it can be stated that, although autogenous CTG achieves higher values, CM are an effective alternative in terms of total width of KT and MT gain.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMinistry of Economy and Competitiveness MAT2017-85999-P MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UEes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission MAT2017-85999-P MINECO/AEI/FEDER/UE A-BIO-157-UGR-18/FEDERes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Granada/Regional Government of Andalusia Research Fund from Spaines_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsAtribución 3.0 España*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/*
dc.subjectCollagen matriceses_ES
dc.subjectKeratinized tissuees_ES
dc.subjectMucosal thicknesses_ES
dc.subjectSoft tissue graftes_ES
dc.titleCollagen Matrix vs. Autogenous Connective Tissue Graft for Soft Tissue Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysises_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/polym13111810
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES


Files in this item

[PDF]

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución 3.0 España
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución 3.0 España