Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2024
Comparative evaluation of microneedling vs injectable platelet-rich fibrin in thin periodontal phenotype: a split-mouth clinical randomized controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yadav Anjali, Tanwar Nishi, Sharma Rajinder, Tewari Shikha, Sangwan Aditi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Microneedling and injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) have been proposed as relatively less invasive alternatives to surgical procedures for augmentation of thin periodontal phenotype. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of microneedling and i-PRF alone on gingival thickness in thin periodontal phenotype individuals.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Systemically healthy individuals with thin periodontal phenotype in mandibular anterior teeth (n = 21) were treated with microneedling on one side and i-PRF on the contralateral side. Assessment of gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and periodontal parameters was done at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 6 months.
RESULTS: In intergroup comparison, a statistically significant increase in gingival thickness was observed with microneedling as compared to i-PRF at 6 months (P < .02). Intragroup comparison from baseline to 6 months showed a statistically significant increase in gingival thickness within both the groups: microneedling from 0.78 ± 0.12 mm to 1.00 ± 0.14 mm (P < .000), and i-PRF from 0.77 ± 0.10 mm to 0.93 ± 0.12 mm (P < .000). Intragroup comparison showed a statistically significant increase in keratinized tissue width in the microneedling group (P < .000). A statistically significant decrease in periodontal parameters was observed on intragroup comparison (P < .000).
CONCLUSION: Considering the higher gain in gingival thickness and the added advantage of eliminating need for autologous blood withdrawal, microneedling is potentially better than i-PRF for phenotype modification in thin periodontal phenotype individuals.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Systemically healthy individuals with thin periodontal phenotype in mandibular anterior teeth (n = 21) were treated with microneedling on one side and i-PRF on the contralateral side. Assessment of gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and periodontal parameters was done at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 6 months.
RESULTS: In intergroup comparison, a statistically significant increase in gingival thickness was observed with microneedling as compared to i-PRF at 6 months (P < .02). Intragroup comparison from baseline to 6 months showed a statistically significant increase in gingival thickness within both the groups: microneedling from 0.78 ± 0.12 mm to 1.00 ± 0.14 mm (P < .000), and i-PRF from 0.77 ± 0.10 mm to 0.93 ± 0.12 mm (P < .000). Intragroup comparison showed a statistically significant increase in keratinized tissue width in the microneedling group (P < .000). A statistically significant decrease in periodontal parameters was observed on intragroup comparison (P < .000).
CONCLUSION: Considering the higher gain in gingival thickness and the added advantage of eliminating need for autologous blood withdrawal, microneedling is potentially better than i-PRF for phenotype modification in thin periodontal phenotype individuals.