• Users Online: 431
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 348-355

Biological and esthetic outcome of immediate dental implant with the adjunct pretreatment of immediate implants with platelet-rich plasma or photofunctionalization: A randomized controlled trial

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Balendra Pratap Singh
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_217_21

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of the study was to assess biological and esthetic outcomes of immediate dental implant in esthetic zone with the adjunct pretreatment of immediate implants with photofunctionalization or platelet-rich plasma in comparison to standard tapered root form implant without pretreatment. Settings and Design: Patients visiting department of Prosthodontics of a tertiary care health Institution. Design of the study was randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Ninety subjects who required replacement of maxillary anterior teeth immediately after extraction were selected and randomly divided into three groups: control group and two case groups. Two case groups were treated with immediate implants with pretreatment with Photofunctionalization (PF group) or platelet-rich plasma (PRP group). Delayed loading protocol was followed with prosthesis given after 6 months. Follow-up was performed at 2nd and 4th weeks and 2, 4, 6, and 12 months (P < 0.05). Biological outcomes (mean marginal bone loss, implant stability), esthetic outcome (pink esthetic score and white esthetic score), and success and survival rate were evaluated. Statistical Analysis Used: Outcomes were compared using one-way ANOVA, while intragroup changes with baseline and follow up were assesed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The level of significance was set at <.05. Results: Mean marginal bone loss was not significantly different in PF group and PRP group than the control group. PF group and PRP group showed significantly greater implant stability as compared to the control group. Pink and white esthetic scores were not significantly different among groups. Conclusion: Pretreatment of commercial dental implants with PF or PRP exhibited a statistically significant difference in implant stability but not with other outcomes.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded529    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal