| 1. |
- Gkikas, Georgias, et al.
(author)
-
A prospective study comparing the effect of L-PRF and porous titanium granules on the preservation of the buccal bone plate following immediate implant placement
- 2020
-
In: The international journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. - : QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC. - 0198-7569 .- 1945-3388. ; 40:5, s. 767-774
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this study was to compare the effect of an autogenous blood concentrate (L-PRF) with the effect of white porous titanium granules (WPTG) on buccal bone remodeling. These materials were used to graft the void between the implant and the buccal bone following immediate implant placement. Clinical measurements were made at two time points, and the mean buccal bone horizontal dimension at placement was 2.94 ± 0.59 mm for L-PRF and 3.49 ± 0.99 mm for WPTG. At reentry, the values were 1.19 ± 0.90 mm and 2.12 ± 0.87 mm, respectively. Overall, there was no difference observed in the performance of the two materials regarding buccal bone resorption.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gkikas, Georgias, et al.
(author)
-
A prospective study comparing the effect of L-PRF and porous titanium granules on the preservation of the buccal bone plate following immediate implant placement
- 2020
-
In: The international journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry. - : Quintessence Publishing. - 0198-7569 .- 1945-3388. ; 40:5, s. 767-774
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this study was to compare the effect of an autogenous blood concentrate (L-PRF) with the effect of white porous titanium granules (WPTG) on buccal bone remodeling. These materials were used to graft the void between the implant and the buccal bone following immediate implant placement. Clinical measurements were made at two time points, and the mean buccal bone horizontal dimension at placement was 2.94 ± 0.59 mm for L-PRF and 3.49 ± 0.99 mm for WPTG. At reentry, the values were 1.19 ± 0.90 mm and 2.12 ± 0.87 mm, respectively. Overall, there was no difference observed in the performance of the two materials regarding buccal bone resorption.
|
|
