Flap versus flapless alveolar ridge preservation: A clinical and histological single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

9Citations
Citations of this article
75Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare a flapless technique of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) to a flap technique to determine if preserving the periosteal blood supply would limit loss of crestal ridge width and height. Methods: Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive ARP using either a flapless or flap technique. Sockets were grafted with demineralized bone matrix and mineralized particulate allograft then covered with a barrier in both groups. Re-entry was performed at 4 months to obtain samples for histological analysis and subsequent implant placement. Results: Ridge width of the flapless group at the crest decreased from 8.3 ± 1.3 mm to 7.0 ± 1.9 mm for a mean loss of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm (p < 0.05), whereas the flap group decreased from 8.5 ± 1.5 mm to 7.5 ± 1.5 mm for a mean loss of 1.0 ± 1.1 mm (p < 0.05). The mean midbuccal vertical change for the flap group was a loss of 0.9 ± 1.3 mm (p < 0.05) versus 0.5 ± 0.9 mm (p < 0.05) for the flapless group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Histologically, flapless ARP revealed more vital mineralized tissue (44 ± 10%) compared to the flap group (p>0.05). In the flapless group, the occlusal soft tissue was significantly thicker than in the flap group at the 4-month re-entry (p< 0.05). Conclusions: Crestal ridge width, height, and percentage of vital mineralized bone following treatment with a flapless ARP technique, was not significantly different from a flap technique.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Siu, T. L., Dukka, H., Saleh, M. H. A., Tattan, M., Dib, Z., Ravidà, A., … Araujo, M. G. (2023). Flap versus flapless alveolar ridge preservation: A clinical and histological single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Periodontology, 94(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.22-0213

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free