Noha Ayman Ghallab1, Abdelsalam Elaskary2, Hossam Elsabagh3, Abrar El Toukhy4, Hams Abdelrahman5, Gillan El-Kimary6. 1. Department of Oral Medicine & Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, 43 Zahraa Street, Giza, 12311, Dokki, Egypt. noha.ghallab@dentistry.cu.edu.eg. 2. Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 3. Oral Medicine and Periodontology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 4. MTI University, Cairo, Egypt. 5. Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 6. Oral Medicine, Periodontology, Oral Diagnosis and Radiology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled clinical trial compared soft tissue changes following a novel vestibular atraumatic extraction technique (test group) versus the conventional incisal atraumatic extraction approach (control group) while implementing the vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement. METHODS: Thirty patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring atraumatic extraction were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either test or control. Vertical soft tissue alterations in mm were measured at baseline and 12 months post-restoration using intraoral digital scans at three reference points, distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla, as well as pink esthetic scores (PESs) after 12 months. RESULTS: Vestibular extraction technique showed significant soft tissue improvement and creeping when compared to incisal extraction (P < 0.05). The test group showed soft tissue measurements with a mean (± SD) of 0.26 (± 0.58), 0.39 (± 0.64), and 0.05 (± 0.37) mm for the mesial papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and distal papilla respectively. While the incisal extraction technique demonstrated gingival recession at the distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla of - 0.37 (± 0.54) mm, - 0.32 (± 0.68) mm, and - 0.39 (± 0.59) mm respectively. The overall PESs after 12 months were 12.67 (± 1.59) in vestibular extraction group, while incisal extraction group was 11.40 (± 1.40), with significant difference between them (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This investigation suggests that both studied techniques were successful in the atraumatic extraction of hopeless severely damaged teeth. The novel vestibular extraction technique might be considered an alternative reliable atraumatic extraction approach compared to the conventional incisal extraction when performing the vestibular socket protocol for immediate implant placement with soft tissue enhancement.
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled clinical trial compared soft tissue changes following a novel vestibular atraumatic extraction technique (test group) versus the conventional incisal atraumatic extraction approach (control group) while implementing the vestibular socket therapy for immediate implant placement. METHODS: Thirty patients with hopeless maxillary anterior teeth requiring atraumatic extraction were randomly assigned into two equal groups to receive either test or control. Vertical soft tissue alterations in mm were measured at baseline and 12 months post-restoration using intraoral digital scans at three reference points, distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla, as well as pink esthetic scores (PESs) after 12 months. RESULTS: Vestibular extraction technique showed significant soft tissue improvement and creeping when compared to incisal extraction (P < 0.05). The test group showed soft tissue measurements with a mean (± SD) of 0.26 (± 0.58), 0.39 (± 0.64), and 0.05 (± 0.37) mm for the mesial papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and distal papilla respectively. While the incisal extraction technique demonstrated gingival recession at the distal papilla, mid-facial gingival margin, and mesial papilla of - 0.37 (± 0.54) mm, - 0.32 (± 0.68) mm, and - 0.39 (± 0.59) mm respectively. The overall PESs after 12 months were 12.67 (± 1.59) in vestibular extraction group, while incisal extraction group was 11.40 (± 1.40), with significant difference between them (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This investigation suggests that both studied techniques were successful in the atraumatic extraction of hopeless severely damaged teeth. The novel vestibular extraction technique might be considered an alternative reliable atraumatic extraction approach compared to the conventional incisal extraction when performing the vestibular socket protocol for immediate implant placement with soft tissue enhancement.
Authors: John M Iasella; Henry Greenwell; Richard L Miller; Margaret Hill; Connie Drisko; Aziz A Bohra; James P Scheetz Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.993