الفهرس Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 118 |  |  |
| | | from | 118 | | |
Abstract
As augmentation of some sort is often necessary in conjunction with immediate placement, the surgical process is complex and {u2018}technique sensitive{u2019}, adding to the overall risks. This leads to shift to a delayed immediate approach aiming to overcome that disadvantage. It increases soft tissue area and volume facilitating soft tissue flap management in addition allows resolution of local pathology to be assessed. Additionally soft tissue enhancement techniques may be utilized at this stage to improve the overall soft tissue configuration at the implant site. Aim of the Study: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effect of Mucograft in enhancement of soft tissue profile and thickness around dental implants as compared to autogenous connective tissue graft. Methods: 18 implants were placed in 16 patients; all patients were with missing teeth in the esthetic zone. Patients were divided into two groups; eight sites received autogenous connective tissue graft around the dental implant acting as control group (CTG group), while the other eight sites received Mucograft around the dental implant (MG group. Soft tissue thickness and soft tissue width over the delayed immediate implant after site augmentation was measured using standardized graduated periodontal probe at base line ,1month ,3months ,6months and 9months, esthetic pink score was evaluated by Two blind observers of different specialty (one general practitioner and one periodontist) using photographs at the end of the study. Observers applied the PES index according to Belser et al 2008. Results: the gingival thickness at 2mm apical at the Mucograft group showed a significant increase with P value = 0.036 while in SCTG group the gingival thickness showed significant increase at mesial, mid-buccal and distal sites with P value = 0.009, < 0.001 and 0.002 respectively. The gingival thickness at 4mm apical showed significant increase at mesial, mid-buccal and distal with P value 0.042, 0.007 and 0.001 respectively only in the SCTG group. The gingival thickness After 6 months follow-up showed significant increase compared to baseline with P value =0.009 in both groups with no significant difference between groups. Gingival width and PES showed non-significant changes throughout the treatment period