A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Free gingival grafts vs mucosal excision in increasing the amount of keratinized mucosa during exposure of submerged orthodontic implants: a comparative, split-mouth study. | LitMetric

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes after using free gingival grafts (FGGs) and mucosal excision during exposure of submerged orthodontic implants.

Method And Materials: Bilateral sites in 28 subjects were divided into two groups: In the FGG group, FGG augmentation was performed around the orthodontic implants, and in the mucosal excision group, a periosteal bed was made after mucosal excision to promote attached mucosa with no additional soft-tissue augmentation. Outcomes measured during the course of the study were the width of attached mucosa, soft tissue regrowth, degree of inflammation, oral debris, and shrinkage of the attached mucosa around the orthodontic implants over a period of 3 months.

Results: FGG was more effective in increasing the width of attached mucosa over simple excision of the mucosa alone (2.87 mm vs 1.5 mm; P = .001). In both the groups, there was minimal postoperative soft tissue regrowth over the orthodontic implants, with no statistical significance difference between them (P > .05). The AM in both the treatment modalities demonstrated significant shrinkage (44% in FGG group vs 68% in mucosal excision group; P = .001). However, sites receiving augmentation showed significantly less inflammation than sites treated with mucosal excision (0.63 vs 1.5; P = .001). There was no statistical difference in oral debri accumulation between both the treatment modalities (P = .43) at the end of study period.

Conclusion: Over a simple mucosal excision, using a FGG results in an uninflamed and immobile band of attached mucosa around an orthodontic implant, which offers greater comfort and stability during its function.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a44893DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

mucosal excision
28
attached mucosa
20
orthodontic implants
16
free gingival
8
gingival grafts
8
excision
8
exposure submerged
8
submerged orthodontic
8
fgg group
8
excision group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!