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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |