Cargando…

A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

AIMS: To assess the bone dimensional changes after extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using primary coverage (closed flap technique, CFT) or healing by secondary intention (open flap technique, OFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients (split mouth design) were planned for extraction a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aladmawy, Majdi A., Natto, Zuhair S., Steffensen, Bjorn, Levi, Paul, Cheung, Wai, Finkelman, Matthew, Ogata, Yumi, Hur, Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7679319
_version_ 1783448109068582912
author Aladmawy, Majdi A.
Natto, Zuhair S.
Steffensen, Bjorn
Levi, Paul
Cheung, Wai
Finkelman, Matthew
Ogata, Yumi
Hur, Yong
author_facet Aladmawy, Majdi A.
Natto, Zuhair S.
Steffensen, Bjorn
Levi, Paul
Cheung, Wai
Finkelman, Matthew
Ogata, Yumi
Hur, Yong
author_sort Aladmawy, Majdi A.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: To assess the bone dimensional changes after extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using primary coverage (closed flap technique, CFT) or healing by secondary intention (open flap technique, OFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients (split mouth design) were planned for extraction and ARP. All sites received ARP with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and nonresorbable membrane after extraction. Clinical standardized measurements were used to assess the dimensional alterations of the alveolar ridge. RESULTS: All patients completed the study, and a total of 20 sites were randomized to CFT or OFT group. Center height (mean difference of 8.1 mm, SD =1.9 CFT, and 7.5 mm, SD= 1.8 OFT) and buccal height (mean difference of 0.8 mm, SD =1.0 CFT, and 0.3 mm, SD= 1.1 OFT) were significantly different within the same group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. In the OFT group, the keratinized tissue width was higher and the pain VAS scores at 24 hours were lower compared with the CFT (p = 0.004 and p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Leaving the flap open did not have any effects on the dimensional changes of bone height or width. However, there was a wider band of keratinized tissue and less pain with the CFT compared with the OFT. The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT03136913.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6720364
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67203642019-09-17 A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Aladmawy, Majdi A. Natto, Zuhair S. Steffensen, Bjorn Levi, Paul Cheung, Wai Finkelman, Matthew Ogata, Yumi Hur, Yong Biomed Res Int Clinical Study AIMS: To assess the bone dimensional changes after extraction and alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) using primary coverage (closed flap technique, CFT) or healing by secondary intention (open flap technique, OFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients (split mouth design) were planned for extraction and ARP. All sites received ARP with freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) and nonresorbable membrane after extraction. Clinical standardized measurements were used to assess the dimensional alterations of the alveolar ridge. RESULTS: All patients completed the study, and a total of 20 sites were randomized to CFT or OFT group. Center height (mean difference of 8.1 mm, SD =1.9 CFT, and 7.5 mm, SD= 1.8 OFT) and buccal height (mean difference of 0.8 mm, SD =1.0 CFT, and 0.3 mm, SD= 1.1 OFT) were significantly different within the same group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. In the OFT group, the keratinized tissue width was higher and the pain VAS scores at 24 hours were lower compared with the CFT (p = 0.004 and p = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Leaving the flap open did not have any effects on the dimensional changes of bone height or width. However, there was a wider band of keratinized tissue and less pain with the CFT compared with the OFT. The study protocol was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT03136913. Hindawi 2019-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6720364/ /pubmed/31531367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7679319 Text en Copyright © 2019 Majdi A. Aladmawy et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Aladmawy, Majdi A.
Natto, Zuhair S.
Steffensen, Bjorn
Levi, Paul
Cheung, Wai
Finkelman, Matthew
Ogata, Yumi
Hur, Yong
A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_fullStr A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_short A Comparison between Primary and Secondary Flap Coverage in Ridge Preservation Procedures: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_sort comparison between primary and secondary flap coverage in ridge preservation procedures: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7679319
work_keys_str_mv AT aladmawymajdia acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT nattozuhairs acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT steffensenbjorn acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT levipaul acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT cheungwai acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT finkelmanmatthew acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT ogatayumi acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT huryong acomparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT aladmawymajdia comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT nattozuhairs comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT steffensenbjorn comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT levipaul comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT cheungwai comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT finkelmanmatthew comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT ogatayumi comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT huryong comparisonbetweenprimaryandsecondaryflapcoverageinridgepreservationproceduresapilotrandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial