Comparative Evaluation of Different Soft Tissue Coverage Techniques at Immediate Implant Sites: A Cohort Study.

Autor:	Rajan SA; Soumya Anugraha Rajan, Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India, Phone: +91 9746610048, +91 9447308747, e-mail: soumyaar267@gmail.com., Ramabhadran BK; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Emmatty R; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Paul TP; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Jose P; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Ameyaroy DK; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Variath PT; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India., Joseph M; Department of Clinical Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Royal Dental College, Palakkad, Kerala, India.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The journal of contemporary dental practice [J Contemp Dent Pract] 2021 Nov 01; Vol. 22 (11), pp. 1268-1274. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Nov 01.
Abstrakt:	Aim and Objective: To compare the mucosal thickness, width of attached gingiva, and extent of coverage achieved with the usage of connective tissue graft, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membrane and buccally advanced flap along with bone grafts in the closure of immediate implant site. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one sites requiring immediate implants were randomly divided into three groups of seven samples each. The techniques comprised bone grafting in jumping space along with either buccally advanced flap (group A), PRF membrane (group B), or connective tissue graft (group C) to cover the socket. In each group, the extent of socket coverage, mucosal phenotype, and width of attached mucosa achieved were assessed after 3 months and intercompared with initial measurements to identify the best technique in achieving primary tissue closure of immediate implant sites. Results: Comparative assessment of gain in attached mucosal width had a remarkable difference in all the groups but exhibited no statistical significance among the groups compared. Also, comparative assessment of mucosal thickness and the extent of socket coverage equally indicated a clinical significance among all groups, but failed to achieve any statistical significance. Conclusion: All the three techniques were found to be equally effective in achieving additional width of attached mucosa around implants, coverage of mucosa at osteotomy sites, and a thicker mucosal phenotype at implant sites. In comparison with one another, no single technique was found to be advantageous over the other. Clinical Significance: The commonly used three techniques for socket coverage following the immediate implant placement has been proven to be equally effective. Thus, the selection of the technique to meet the objective of complete closure of an extraction socket along with implant platform is left open to operator skill and operation site, which should consider least traumatic and most feasible technique.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu