ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical, histological, and histomorphometrical outcomes of CenoBone® allograft with and without plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF) for the preservation of edentulous ridge in the dental sockets. Materials and Methods: This study is experimental clinical trial that 14 dental sockets were included the sockets required ridge preservation followed by implant placement in the premolar and molar of the mandible. After extraction of the teeth, the CenoBone® allograft and PRGF were used in the test group and CenoBone® allograft was used alone in the control group. During the first stage of surgery and 5 months later, in the second stage of surgery (implant placement), the vertical changes of the ridge were measured. Furthermore, using Core-Biopsy in the second stage of surgery, criteria of histologic and histomorphometric were determined. Data were analyzed with t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Fisher's exact test at the level of significance of P < 0.05. Results: The mean trabecular thickness in the test group (52.18 ± 5.53) was significantly higher than that in the control group (41.53 ± 10.40) (P = 0.344). However, there were no significant differences in the mean values of vertical bone absorption, bone percentage, remaining biomaterials, inflammation, and blood vessels between the two groups. There was no case of foreign body reaction and the bone was vital in all the cases and in direct contact with the biomaterial. Conclusion: Although CenoBone® allograft with PRGF was effective in some histomorphometric factors such as trabecular thickness, it did not lead to significant clinical changes.
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: The tunnel technique has shown promising results in treatment of gingival recession. Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) is considered effective for soft tissue regeneration since it is a rich source of growth factors. PURPOSE: This clinical trial aimed to assess the efficacy of PRGF along with the tunnel technique and connective tissue graft for treatment of gingival recession. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In this controlled clinical trial, 20 areas around anterior and posterior teeth in 3 patients with gingival recession were bilaterally selected. The tunnel technique was used with and without PRGF in the test and control groups, respectively (10 areas in each group). The keratinized gingival width (KGW), clinical attachment level (CAL), clinical probing depth (PD), cementoenamel junction (CEJ) to mucogingival junction (MGJ) distance, and the esthetic visual analog scale (EVAS) score were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 3 months, postoperatively. The gingival recession width (RW) and vertical recession depth (VRD) were assessed preoperatively and at 2 weeks and 3 months, postoperatively. The pain visual analog scale (PVAS) score was measured at 1, 3 and 7 days, post-treatment and the healing index (HI) was measured at 1, 3 and 7 days and 1 month, postoperatively. The root coverage percentage was assessed during 3 months. Paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA were used for statistical analyses. p Value< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Significant improvements were noted in all tested parameters in both groups (p< 0.05). The mean root coverage percentage after 6 months was 88.68%±20.69% and 78.77%±24.94% in the test and control groups, respectively. None of the tested parameters were significantly different between two groups (p> 0.05). CONCLUSION: Treatment of gingival recession with the tunnel technique can yield favorable clinical outcome, irrespective of the employment of PRGF.
