Pre-implant placement soft tissue augmentation Oral Health
Conditions
Interventions
The method used for randomization was a closed envelope method. The envelopes were opened prior to the soft tissue augmentation procedure, allocating the patient into one of the three groups.
Followi
Sponsors
Damascus University
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Had extraction sites that conformed to Type ST1 classification, as per Steigmann et al. (Steigmann et al., 2022), where both facial soft and hard tissues were preserved at levels consistent with the cementoenamel junction 2. Possessed at least 2 mm of keratinized tissue on the buccal aspect of the extraction site 3. Demonstrated commendable oral hygiene 4. Aged 18 years or above
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Exhibited buccal alveolar bone defects, such as dehiscence or fenestration, or experienced loss of the facial bone plate during extraction 2. Had systemic conditions that could impede bone healing 3. Were pregnant at the time of the study 4. Were classified as heavy smokers, defined as those consuming over 10 cigarettes daily
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Pocket depth (PD) assessed using a periodontal probe gauged from the edge of the mucosa to the base of the pocket at two timepoints (baseline and 6 months after functional loading) at six distinct points around each implant, mesio-buccal (mb), buccal (b), disto-buccal (db), mesio-oral (mo), oral (o), and disto-oral (do), to ensure a thorough evaluation. 2. Marginal bone level (MBL) evaluated at two key intervals: initially at the time of implant insertion (baseline) and subsequently after a period of 6 months. For each dental implant (DI), standardized periapical radiographs were captured at baseline and at the 6-month mark, employing a paralleling apparatus. The quantification of marginal bone loss (MBL) involved measuring the span from the inaugural point of bone contact with the implant to the crest of the implant. The assessment of bone loss incorporated both the mesial and distal dimensions of each DI. | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| 1. Plaque Accumulation Index (PAI): adapted from the methodology proposed by Löe and colleagues (LÖE et al., 1972). this index was evaluated using a periodontal probe at six points around each implant: mesio-buccal (mb), buccal (b), disto-buccal (db), mesio-oral (mo), oral (o), and disto-oral (do), to ensure a thorough evaluation at baseline and 6 months after functional loading. 2. Bleeding on Probing (BOP): a binary assessment indicating the presence or absence of bleeding, evaluated using a periodontal probe at six points around each implant: mesio-buccal (mb), buccal (b), disto-buccal (db), mesio-oral (mo), oral (o), and disto-oral (do), to ensure a thorough evaluation at baseline and 6 months after functional loading. 3. Mucosal recession (MR): distance from the edge of the restoration to the gingival margin was evaluated using a periodontal probe at the mid-buccal surface at baseline and 6 months after functional loading. | — |
Countries
Syria
Contacts
Public ContactAmmar Ibrahim
Outcome results
None listed