7 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
A Randomized, Three Parallel Arms Clinical Trial to evaluate s the clinical impact of L-PRF vs H-PRF vs Palatal stent on the healing of the donor palatal site.
This study will compare two incision designs to allow for coronal gingival/mucosal flap advancement and tissue augmentation with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) graft around teeth with gingival recession and a lack of adequate keratinized gingiva. The SAMRI technique described is a novel technique involving a simplified incision and suturing technique and to the investigators' knowledge, this is the first study that seeks to compare this technique to other techniques for differences in clinical outcomes (percentage root coverage, resultant tissue thickness, and width of keratinized tissue) and patient-centered outcomes (post-operative pain, swelling, changes in daily activities, and patient-assessed esthetics) in a controlled study.
The primary purpose of this protocol is to isolate, investigate and compare the regenerative and differentiation potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC's) in the gingival (gum) tissue harvested from two different locations from the roof of the mouth (palate), that is from the front part(premolar)and back part(molar). MSC's are known for their capacity to form different kinds of hard and soft tissue including bone, fibers for periodontal ligaments, cementum and dentin, thus this study can help in optimizing their clinical application and transplantation approaches in tissue regeneration.
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.
This study is to compare the two techniques to achieve change in the tissue quality at areas of lack of Keratinized Tissue (KT) using soft tissue grafting with autogenous graft material (Free Gingival Graft)(FGG) vs Strip gingival graft with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) (SGG+ADM).
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 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.