Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the effects of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) clot membranes on palatal epithelial wound healing and postoperative discomfort following free gingival graft (FGG) harvesting.
The objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the effects of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF) clot membranes on palatal epithelial wound healing and postoperative discomfort following free gingival graft (FGG) harvesting.
Fourty-five patients who underwent FGG harvesting were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) control group (n=15), receiving only a sterile gelatin sponge; (2) A-PRF group (n=15), receiving A-PRF clot membranes; and (3) CGF group (n=15), receiving CGF clot membranes at the donor site. The epithelization rate, color match, and sensation scores of the palatal wound were assessed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks postoperatively. Pain levels, analgesic consumption, and bleeding time were self-reported by patients for the first 7 days of healing.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced platelet-rich fibrin | Active Comparator | Advanced platelet-rich fibrin clot membranes on palatal epithelial wound after harvesting free gingival graft |
|
| Concentrated growth factor | Active Comparator | Concentrated growth factor clot membranes on palatal epithelial wound after harvesting free gingival graft |
|
| Sterile gelatin sponge | Placebo Comparator | Sterile gelatin sponge on palatal epithelial wound after harvesting free gingival graft |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced platelet-rich fibrin | Procedure | Advanced platelet-rich fibrin membranes and free gingival graft |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization with re-total, partial, or none by dropping hydrogen peroxide (3%) on the wound surface | Baseline |
| Epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization with re-total, partial, or none by dropping hydrogen peroxide (3%) on the wound surface | 1 week post-surgery |
| Epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization with re-total, partial, or none by dropping hydrogen peroxide (3%) on the wound surface | 2 week post-surgery |
| Epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization with re-total, partial, or none by dropping hydrogen peroxide (3%) on the wound surface | 3 week post-surgery |
| Epithelialization | Rate of re-epithelialization with re-total, partial, or none by dropping hydrogen peroxide (3%) on the wound surface | 4 week post-surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | Baseline |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 1st day after surgery |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Figen Öngöz Dede, Prof | Ordu Universitesi | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ordu University | Ordu | 52100 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Concentrated growth factor | Procedure | Concentrated growth factor membranes and free gingival graft |
|
| Sterile gelatin sponge | Procedure | Sterile gelatin sponge and free gingival graft |
|
| Pain perception |
Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) |
| 2nd day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 3th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 4th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 5th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 6th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 7th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 14th day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 21st day after surgery |
| Pain perception | Presence of pain perception on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (0: no pain, 1: minimal pain, 10: severe pain) | 28th day after surgery |