10 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
This clinical trial aims to compare and evaluate the clinical outcomes between two distinct treatment sequences: free gingival graft surgery preceding guided bone regeneration and guided bone regeneration followed by free gingival graft.
This study looks to compare the clinical effects of StellaLife VEGA Oral Care Kit with chlorhexidine mouth-rinse on patient comfort, wound healing, wound epithelialization, bacterial levels, and colonization of the wounds.
The study aims at comparing two different approaches for soft tissue augmentation at implants lacking keratinized and adherent mucosa width: the free gingival graft (FGG) vs the Buccal Strip Graft in combination with a xenogeneic collagen matrix (BSG + CM)
The goal of this study was to compare, clinical and histologically, the use of the suine collagen matrix (Mucograft Seal \[MS\], Geisthlich®) and the free gingival graft (FGG) for the alveolar sealing after inserted bone graft biomaterial. It was included 18 patients with tooth referred to extraction (maxilar incisives, canines, or pre-molars) which were randomly divided in 2 groups, according to the material for alveolus sealing: control (FGG) and test (MS). After the minimally traumatic extraction, all the alveoli were filled with bovine mineral matrix (Bio-Oss®), and the material for alveolar sealing were positioned and stabilized with sutures. The follow-up (clinical and photographic) happened on the immediate post-operatory period, and with 3, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days. After 120 days, before implant placement, tissues samples were obtained with a 3.5mm punch scalpel for histological analysis. Qualitative information related to the patient's perception considering the treatment were collected.
In this proposed study a novel technique that utilizes bone screws as an anchorage device will be used to facilitate suturing and ensure graft tissue immobilization on full thickness recipient bed preparation sites. Currently, no information is available on free gingival graft treatment outcomes comparing full thickness recipient bed preparation, i.e., no periosteum remaining under the free gingival graft, with the aid of bone screws versus a conventional partial thickness recipient bed preparation with periosteum remaining under the graft. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of these two different recipient bed preparations on soft tissue dimension change, graft and surgical wound healing, patient comfort, surgical complication frequency and operator satisfaction after free gingival graft to increase the width of keratinized gingival tissue in mandibular posterior sites. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of these two different recipient bed preparations on soft tissue dimension change, graft and surgical wound healing, patient comfort, surgical complication frequency and operator satisfaction after free gingival graft procedure to increase the width of keratinized gingival tissue in mandibular posterior sites. The specific aims of this research study contain two aspects: 1. To compare the wound healing of a free gingival graft using either a partial thickness flap or full-thickness flap preparation with bone screws at the recipient site around mandibular posterior areas. 2. To assess patient comfort and surgeon satisfaction with a free gingival graft procedure using these two different recipient bed preparations.
This randomized clinical comparative study will evaluate the postoperative pain following the FGG graft harvest procedure technique covered by four different methods for coverage of the palatal donor site.
The purpose of this study is to compare an allogenic amnion chorion membrane to a collagen dressing in palatal wound healing after harvesting free gingival graft (FGG).
The hypothesis for the present study is that patient-based outcomes and gingival blood flow will be more favorable for the free gingival graft (FGG) donor sites being covered by the test wound dressing material episil compared to the control dressing.
This study will compare two commonly used soft tissue grafting techniques (free gingival graft, FGG vs. connective tissue graft, CTG) to augment the soft tissue around dental implants with a lack of keratinized mucosa. To investigators knowledge, these 2 types of grafts have not been compared for differences in clinical (amount of KM increase, tissue thickness increase and esthetics) and patient-centered outcomes (pain, swelling, change in daily activities) in a controlled study.
This prospective controlled randomized blind clinical study investigated 44 implants displaying lack of KG in 29 subjects. Fourteen subjects received FGGs followed by oral prophylaxis. Fifteen subjects in the control group did not receive FGGs. The width of KG, gingival recession (GR), pocket depths (PD), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. Changes in crestal bone levels, from baseline, were assessed at 18 months.