Facial Gingival Level Evaluation Following Soft Tissue Augmentation Using CTG Around Immediate Dental Implants vs Immediate Dental Implants Alone in the Esthetic Zone.

Cairo University18 enrolled

Overview

Aim of current study to evaluate connective tissue graft combined with immediate implant placement as an innovative option for less facial gingival tissue recession, less pocket depth and less clinical attachment loss versus immediate implant alone.

P: Adult patients with single or multiple non-restorable teeth in esthetic zone I: Immediate implant + Connective tissue graft. C: Immediate implant alone. O: Primary Outcome: Facial gingival level Secondary Outcome: Patient satisfaction, probing depth, probing attachment loss, tissue biotype, keratinized mucosal width and bleeding on probing. P.M will select patients from the outpatient clinic of the Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department - Cairo University. Screening of patients will continue until the target population is achieved. Identifying and recruiting potential subjects is achieved through patient database.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

TRIPLE

Enrollment

Conditions

Immediate Dental Implants Connective Tissue Graft Esthetic Zone

Interventions

Intervention group:(Group B) connective tissue graft combined with immediate implant.PROCEDURE

Patients will be treated with connective tissue graft combined with immediate implant.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsMax age: 55 Years

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: 1. 18-55 2. Patients with single or multiple non-restorable teeth in maxillary anterior or premolar area. 3. Patients with adequate bone volume for the dental implant procedure. 4. Patients who are compliant to oral hygiene measures. 5. Patient consent approval and signing. Exclusion Criteria: 1. Heavy smokers. 2. Systemic disease that contraindicates implant placement or surgical procedures. 3. No or poor patient's compliance. 4. Psychological problems. 5. Pathology at the site of intervention. 6. Pregnancy females.

Locations (1)

Cairo University, Faculty of Dentistry.

Giza, Egypt

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Facial gingival level

FGL was evaluated by measuring the distance between the level of soft tissues and the lower border of the customized template that was used as a reference line at three readings mesially, mid-facially and distally.

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Secondary Outcomes

Pain score

Visual analog scale was recorded every day for 12 days follow-up and the patient marks on the line the point they feel that it represents their response

Time frame: Up to 12 days

Patient satisfaction

Post-Surgical Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSPSQ). The patient questionnaire evaluates patients' perception and subjective admiration of the final result of the treatment

Time frame: Up to 6 month

Tissue biotype

Thickness of the peri-implant mucosa around the implant

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Pink esthetic score

seven different variables: mesial papilla, distal papilla, facial soft-tissue level, soft tissue contour, alveolar process deficiency, soft-tissue color and texture at the facial aspect of the implant site

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Width of keratinized mucosa

distance from the mucogingival junction (MGJ) to the gingival margin

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Bleeding on probing

Bleeding was provoked by sweeping the peri-implant mucosal sulcus using a periodontal probe.

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov

This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.