Evaluation of using advanced platelet rich fibrin versus advanced platelet rich fibrin xenograft mixture around immediate implants in maxillary esthetic zone (a randomized controlled clinical trial) | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Articles in Press, Corrected Proof, Available Online from 01 May 2025 PDF (850.83 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2024.324482.1540 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
nourhan tamer helmy   1; Nevien Mohamed2; Magued H Fahmy3; Mona Samy Oraby 4
| ||||
| 1BDS 2014, faculty of dentistry, pharos university, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 2Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt | ||||
| 3Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||||
| 4Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department, Alexandria university | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Immediate implants have been widely used for missing teeth. However, anterior maxillary teeth replacement presented a challenge due to the presence of multiple factors such as bone quantity, aesthetic factor, and bone-to-implant contact. Immediate implant placement in freshly extracted sockets is an accepted treatment modality, and the resulting peri-implant gap should be grafted for more predictable results. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate clinically and radiographically the efficiency of using A-PRF compared to A-PRF xenograft mixture around immediate implants in the esthetic zone. Materials and methods: A clinical and radiographic study was carried out on sixteen patients with non-restorable maxillary anterior teeth. Patients were randomly distributed into two equal groups, with eight implants in each group. The study group received A-PRF to fill the peri-implant gap, and the control group received A-PRF Xenograft mixture. The variables studied were implant stability, modified gingival index, marginal bone height, and bone density; the follow-up period was 6 months. For statistical analysis, independent and paired t-tests were used. Results: There was no significant difference between both groups regarding implant stability, palatal bone loss, and modified gingival index, while there was a significant difference between A-PRF group and the control group regarding bone density and buccal bone loss. Conclusion: A-PRF as sole grafting material is effective for bone regeneration, providing ease of use, affordability, and enhanced soft tissue healing. However, combining A-PRF with xenograft improves bone formation, yielding more consistent clinical and radiographic results | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Keywords: A-PRF; immediate implant; esthetic zone; xenograft | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 110 PDF Download: 155 |
||||
