RESUMO
Introduction: Modern dentistry aims to restore the comfort and health of the stomatognathic system. Dental implants have emerged as a promising option for this purpose. Concentrated growth factors (CGFs) have been suggested to enhance the healing of bone grafts and enhance the integration of implants into the bone. Growth factors are proteins which regulate the complex process of wound healing. They play an important role in cell migration, cell proliferation, and angiogenesis in the tissue regeneration phase. CGF was first developed by Sacco in 2006. It can be used as a barrier membrane to accelerate soft-tissue healing. CGF does not require any chemical or anticoagulants, and hence, it is free from viral transmission diseases. Crestal bone levels, peri-implant bone density, bleeding, probing depth, mobility, occlusion factors, restoration adequacy, radiographic images, oral hygiene, and patient health status are some of the important parameters for determining longevity of success rates in implant dentistry. This study will assess the peri-implant bone density and crestal bone levels with and without the use of CGF. Aim: To evaluate the effect of CGFs on peri-implant bone density and in the preservation of crestal bone levels around dental implants. Materials and Methods: Sampling procedure: Random selection of population (Sealed envelope method)Number of groups: Two-Control group (Group 1) and Experimental group (Group 2)Sample size: 20 For Group 2, implants were placed with CGF. For Group 1, implants were placed without CGF. The peri-implant bone density and bone levels were measured by Digora and signora software. Results: The mean crestal bone loss on the mesial aspect of implants placed in Group 2 is 0.294 mm and Group 1 is 0.345 mm, and the mean crestal bone loss on the distal aspect of implants placed in Group 2 is 0.320 mm and in Group 1 is 0.331 mm. There are no many significant differences on mesial and distal aspects around implants between the two groups Intragroup comparison of bone density values in Group 1 shows the mean difference from baseline to 1 month is 0.6, and after three and 6 months periods are 1.1 and 1.1, respectively, which indicates not much significant improvement in bone density values in Group 1. Intergroup comparison shows a significant difference between both the groups starting from as early as the 1st month. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that CGF is significantly better in the regeneration of bone around the implants when comparing with nonCGF groups. Although CGF showed improvement in bone formation, there are no many differences in crestal bone level changes on mesial and distal sides of the implants between the two groups.
