RESUMEN
Background: This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess and compare postoperative swelling and pain in patients undergoing alveolar ridge preservation using RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus. Methods: A total of 20 patients requiring tooth extraction were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to two groups: Group A received alveolar ridge preservation with RidgeMax Pro and Group B with AlveoGraft Plus. Postoperative swelling was evaluated by measuring facial dimensions using standardized facial photographs at baseline and at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at the same time points. Statistical analysis was performed using t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: Both RidgeMax Pro and AlveoGraft Plus demonstrated effective alveolar ridge preservation without any reported complications. In terms of postoperative swelling, Group A (RidgeMax Pro) exhibited significantly lower facial swelling compared to Group B (AlveoGraft Plus) at all time points (P < 0.05). The mean pain scores on the VAS were consistently lower in Group A than in Group B across the assessment time points (P < 0.05). The trend of reduced swelling and pain in Group A persisted throughout the 72-hour follow-up period. Conclusion: Alveolar ridge preservation with RidgeMax Pro (Trade Name: RidgeMax Pro) resulted in significantly reduced postoperative swelling and pain compared to AlveoGraft Plus (Trade Name: AlveoGraft Plus).
RESUMEN
Background: This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the aesthetic outcome and patient perception of immediate versus DL of implant-supported single crowns. Methods: A total of 60 patients with a single missing tooth were enrolled and randomly assigned to two groups: immediate loading (IL) and delayed loading (DL). Each group consisted of 30 patients with a total of 30 implants. In the IL group, crowns were loaded onto implants immediately after placement, while in the DL group, a healing period of 3 months was observed before crown placement. Aesthetic outcome was assessed using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) for soft tissue and the White Esthetic Score (WES) for the crown. Patient perception was evaluated through a visual analog scale (VAS) for satisfaction, comfort, and overall experience. Results: The IL group demonstrated comparable aesthetic outcomes to the DL group, with mean PES and WES scores of 10.2 ± 1.5 and 8.7 ± 1.2, respectively, in the IL group, and 10.5 ± 1.3 and 8.5 ± 1.4 in the DL group. Patient perception in terms of satisfaction, comfort, and overall experience was similarly high in both groups, with VAS scores above 8 for each parameter. Conclusion: This randomized controlled trial suggests that both IL and DL of implant-supported single crowns result in favorable aesthetic outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction.