OBJECTIVES: The current study aims to compare advanced-platelet-rich fibrin membrane (A-PRF) to connective tissue graft (CTG) using Han and Takei's approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The defective papilla was randomly allocated to either the control group (CTG) or to the experimental group (A-PRF). Papilla height (PH) and percent change in the gingival black triangle (GBT) area were recorded at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

RESULTS: Thirty-two deficient IDPs with an initial papilla presence index (PPI) of 2 or 3 were included. At 12 months, the papilla-fill significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.001) without a significant difference between the study groups (p = 0.637). A mean gain in IDP height of 2.25 mm (± 0.97) in the CTG group and 1.86 mm (± 0.7) in the A-PRF group were recorded with a nonsignificant difference. Gingival black triangle fill showed a 57.98% fill in the CTG and 54.65% fill in the A-PRF group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (0.956). Regarding postoperative pain patients, the CTG group consumed significantly more analgesics than the A-PRF group (11.75 ± 3.51 and 8 ± 3.08, respectively, with p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION: Both CTG and A-PRF were found to be equally effective in increasing deficient IDP height with Han and Takei's surgical technique, with no significant difference. Within the current study's limitations, A-PRF seems to be a viable alternative to CTG in the treatment of GBTs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multilayered A-PRF membrane can be used as a choice in the augmentation of receded papillae, using Han and Takei's technique.

OBJECTIVES: The current study aims to compare advanced-platelet-rich fibrin membrane (A-PRF) to connective tissue graft (CTG) using Han and Takei's approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The defective papilla was randomly allocated to either the control group (CTG) or to the experimental group (A-PRF). Papilla height (PH) and percent change in the gingival black triangle (GBT) area were recorded at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

RESULTS: Thirty-two deficient IDPs with an initial papilla presence index (PPI) of 2 or 3 were included. At 12 months, the papilla-fill significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.001) without a significant difference between the study groups (p = 0.637). A mean gain in IDP height of 2.25 mm (± 0.97) in the CTG group and 1.86 mm (± 0.7) in the A-PRF group were recorded with a nonsignificant difference. Gingival black triangle fill showed a 57.98% fill in the CTG and 54.65% fill in the A-PRF group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (0.956). Regarding postoperative pain patients, the CTG group consumed significantly more analgesics than the A-PRF group (11.75 ± 3.51 and 8 ± 3.08, respectively, with p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION: Both CTG and A-PRF were found to be equally effective in increasing deficient IDP height with Han and Takei's surgical technique, with no significant difference. Within the current study's limitations, A-PRF seems to be a viable alternative to CTG in the treatment of GBTs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multilayered A-PRF membrane can be used as a choice in the augmentation of receded papillae, using Han and Takei's technique.

OBJECTIVES: The current guidelines recommend that immediate implants be placed in patients with thick (>1 mm) buccal bone due to the inevitable tissue remodeling that follows tooth extraction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of buccal bone thickness on bone resorption in immediate implant placement and compare two measuring techniques of the aforementioned resorption.

MATERIALS: The present study was designed as a prospective nonrandomized, controlled clinical trial. A total of 30 implants were split between the two study arms, thin buccal bone and thick buccal bone. The primary outcome was to assess vertical bone changes radiographically by cone beam scans preoperatively, at 2 months and 18 months after implant placement in patients with thin and thick buccal plate. Secondary outcomes included the change in the thickness of the buccal bony plate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic score.

RESULTS: Only 26 implants were statistically analyzed as one early failure was observed in each group. Furthermore, 2 patients of the thick group withdrew from the study. Cone beam computed tomography measurements revealed that at 2 months the vertical bone loss was 1.09 for the thin group and 0.85 for the thick group. The buccal bone plate resorption of the thin group was 0.39 mm while it was 0.52 mm for the thick group. The buccal bone plate was 1.25 mm in the thin group and 1.88 mm in the thick group. The PES did not show any significant difference with very good esthetic results.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current study, the amount of buccal bone plate resorption and the subsequent thickness obtained after implantation in both groups suggest successful long-term results. The two measuring techniques have proven to be comparable and reliable in the measurement of buccal bony plate changes. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04731545&cntry=EG&state=&city=&dist=.

OBJECTIVES: The current guidelines recommend that immediate implants be placed in patients with thick (>1 mm) buccal bone due to the inevitable tissue remodeling that follows tooth extraction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of buccal bone thickness on bone resorption in immediate implant placement and compare two measuring techniques of the aforementioned resorption.

MATERIALS: The present study was designed as a prospective nonrandomized, controlled clinical trial. A total of 30 implants were split between the two study arms, thin buccal bone and thick buccal bone. The primary outcome was to assess vertical bone changes radiographically by cone beam scans preoperatively, at 2 months and 18 months after implant placement in patients with thin and thick buccal plate. Secondary outcomes included the change in the thickness of the buccal bony plate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic score.

RESULTS: Only 26 implants were statistically analyzed as one early failure was observed in each group. Furthermore, 2 patients of the thick group withdrew from the study. Cone beam computed tomography measurements revealed that at 2 months the vertical bone loss was 1.09 for the thin group and 0.85 for the thick group. The buccal bone plate resorption of the thin group was 0.39 mm while it was 0.52 mm for the thick group. The buccal bone plate was 1.25 mm in the thin group and 1.88 mm in the thick group. The PES did not show any significant difference with very good esthetic results.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current study, the amount of buccal bone plate resorption and the subsequent thickness obtained after implantation in both groups suggest successful long-term results. The two measuring techniques have proven to be comparable and reliable in the measurement of buccal bony plate changes. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04731545&cntry=EG&state=&city=&dist=.

OBJECTIVES: The current guidelines recommend that immediate implants be placed in patients with thick (>1 mm) buccal bone due to the inevitable tissue remodeling that follows tooth extraction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of buccal bone thickness on bone resorption in immediate implant placement and compare two measuring techniques of the aforementioned resorption.

MATERIALS: The present study was designed as a prospective nonrandomized, controlled clinical trial. A total of 30 implants were split between the two study arms, thin buccal bone and thick buccal bone. The primary outcome was to assess vertical bone changes radiographically by cone beam scans preoperatively, at 2 months and 18 months after implant placement in patients with thin and thick buccal plate. Secondary outcomes included the change in the thickness of the buccal bony plate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic score.

RESULTS: Only 26 implants were statistically analyzed as one early failure was observed in each group. Furthermore, 2 patients of the thick group withdrew from the study. Cone beam computed tomography measurements revealed that at 2 months the vertical bone loss was 1.09 for the thin group and 0.85 for the thick group. The buccal bone plate resorption of the thin group was 0.39 mm while it was 0.52 mm for the thick group. The buccal bone plate was 1.25 mm in the thin group and 1.88 mm in the thick group. The PES did not show any significant difference with very good esthetic results.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current study, the amount of buccal bone plate resorption and the subsequent thickness obtained after implantation in both groups suggest successful long-term results. The two measuring techniques have proven to be comparable and reliable in the measurement of buccal bony plate changes. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04731545&cntry=EG&state=&city=&dist=.

OBJECTIVES: The current guidelines recommend that immediate implants be placed in patients with thick (>1 mm) buccal bone due to the inevitable tissue remodeling that follows tooth extraction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of buccal bone thickness on bone resorption in immediate implant placement and compare two measuring techniques of the aforementioned resorption.

MATERIALS: The present study was designed as a prospective nonrandomized, controlled clinical trial. A total of 30 implants were split between the two study arms, thin buccal bone and thick buccal bone. The primary outcome was to assess vertical bone changes radiographically by cone beam scans preoperatively, at 2 months and 18 months after implant placement in patients with thin and thick buccal plate. Secondary outcomes included the change in the thickness of the buccal bony plate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic score.

RESULTS: Only 26 implants were statistically analyzed as one early failure was observed in each group. Furthermore, 2 patients of the thick group withdrew from the study. Cone beam computed tomography measurements revealed that at 2 months the vertical bone loss was 1.09 for the thin group and 0.85 for the thick group. The buccal bone plate resorption of the thin group was 0.39 mm while it was 0.52 mm for the thick group. The buccal bone plate was 1.25 mm in the thin group and 1.88 mm in the thick group. The PES did not show any significant difference with very good esthetic results.

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the current study, the amount of buccal bone plate resorption and the subsequent thickness obtained after implantation in both groups suggest successful long-term results. The two measuring techniques have proven to be comparable and reliable in the measurement of buccal bony plate changes. https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04731545&cntry=EG&state=&city=&dist=.