BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized study is to evaluate cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM) for helping cicatrization and wound healing after dental implant surgery. Epithelialization, pain, infection, inflammation, and scarring were studied. METHODS:CAM was placed in surgical wounds related to implant surgery. The extent of healing was evaluated by a masked investigator for lesion size, epithelialization, pain, infection, inflammation, and scarring. A clinical evaluation occurred at baseline, 72 and 144 hours, 2 weeks, and 1, 1.5, and 3 months. The results were compared to conventionally managed, similar lesions that were treated the same day in the same patient allowing each patient to serve as their own control. RESULTS: This prospective randomized study showed statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups regarding cicatrization, wound healing, and pain. The effects of the membrane were statistically significant during the first 3 weeks of the study, and thereafter, the effects of the membrane for the two groups were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS:CAM was effective in helping cicatrization and wound healing. CAM supported the growth of the epithelium and, thus, facilitated migration and reinforced adhesion. It also decreased the pain of subjects. Regarding dental implants, the use of CAM is not cost effective. New studies evaluating other oral conditions are encouraged.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized study is to evaluate cryopreserved amniotic membrane (CAM) for helping cicatrization and wound healing after dental implant surgery. Epithelialization, pain, infection, inflammation, and scarring were studied. METHODS: CAM was placed in surgical wounds related to implant surgery. The extent of healing was evaluated by a masked investigator for lesion size, epithelialization, pain, infection, inflammation, and scarring. A clinical evaluation occurred at baseline, 72 and 144 hours, 2 weeks, and 1, 1.5, and 3 months. The results were compared to conventionally managed, similar lesions that were treated the same day in the same patient allowing each patient to serve as their own control. RESULTS: This prospective randomized study showed statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups regarding cicatrization, wound healing, and pain. The effects of the membrane were statistically significant during the first 3 weeks of the study, and thereafter, the effects of the membrane for the two groups were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: CAM was effective in helping cicatrization and wound healing. CAM supported the growth of the epithelium and, thus, facilitated migration and reinforced adhesion. It also decreased the pain of subjects. Regarding dental implants, the use of CAM is not cost effective. New studies evaluating other oral conditions are encouraged.