Skip to content

Improving Gum Health Around Dental Implants: A Clinical Trial Comparing Two Surgical Approaches With and Without a Natural Healing Treatment

Comparative Evaluation Of Conventional Flap Versus Pedicle Flap and T-PRF On Peri-Implant Mucosal Enhancement : A Randomized Controlled Trial - Nil

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2026/05/111238
Enrollment
30
Registered
2026-05-27
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2026-06-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Interventions

Intervention1: Pedicle flap technique T-PRF (Titanium-Prepared Platelet Rich Fibrin): The intervention in this study involves the use of pedicle flap technique and Titanium-Prepared Platelet Rich Fibr

Sponsors

KASHISH AGRAWAL
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients aged 18 75 years. Systemically healthy individual. Patients requiring single tooth implant supported prosthesis. Adequate bone volume for implant placement without need for bone augmentation. Thin gingival mucosal phenotype with a peri-implant mucosal thickness of 2mm or less Patients willing to provide informed consent and comply with follow-up visits.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Smokers or tobacco users. Patients with uncontrolled systemic diseases e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, immunocompromised conditions. Patients having bleeding disorders or receiving anti-coagulant therapy. Pregnant or lactating women. History of radiation therapy in the head and neck region. Poor oral hygiene compliance. Sites requiring additional soft tissue grafting procedures. Patients on medications affecting wound healing (steroids, bisphosphonates).

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
To evaluate changes in peri-implant mucosal thickness and width of keratinized mucosa following conventional flap, pedicle flap, and T-PRF procedures during healing abutment placement.Timepoint: Baseline 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 3 months 6 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Secondary outcomes include assessment of peri-implant clinical parameters, soft tissue healing, patient comfort, & esthetic outcomes following different soft tissue management techniques.Timepoint: Baseline 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 3 months 6 months

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactKASHISH AGRAWAL

KALINGA INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES

sheetal.acharya@kids.ac.in9040267717

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Jun 11, 2026