3D-printed model for gingival flap surgery simulation: Development and pilot test

INTRODUCTION

To assess the feasibility of a realistic model for learning oral flaps using 3D printing technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mould was designed to reproduce the mandibular gingival mucosa, and a mandibular model was created using a three-dimensional printer for training undergraduate students to perform gingival flaps. After a short interview about its use, the participants were asked to use the simulator and provide feedback using a 5-point Likert questionnaire.

RESULTS

The 3D-printed oral surgery flap training model was practical and inexpensive. The model was very realistic, educational and useful for hands-on training.

CONCLUSIONS

3D printing technology offers new possibilities for training in dental treatments that are currently difficult to replicate. The use of this simulator for oral flap surgery was well-received and considered promising by the participants.

Effect of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Bone Healing in Immediate Implants Analyzed by Cone Beam Computerized Tomography: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The possibility of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) on the improvement of bone and adjacent tissue recovery has previously been validated. However, there is insufficient data supporting the use of platelet-rich plasma to improve the healing of bone and adjacent tissues around an implant in the oral cavity. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to observe the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) concentrate on marginal bone loss and bone density around immediate implant placement using Cone Beam Computerized Tomography (CBCT). This clinical study was conducted over a period of six months on 12 subjects, who were equally categorized into two groups. Group I was the control, whereas the subjects in Group II received PRP therapy at the surgical site. All subjects were given a standard treatment with a single implant system (DIO UFII hybrid sandblasted acid-etched implants). Inserted implants were analyzed through CBCT, and records were registered at baseline, at the 12^th week before functional loading and the 26^th week after functional loading. The bone loss was calculated at the proximal (mesial and distal) side of the implant and bone density at baseline, 12^th week, and 26^th week after implant placement. SPSS version 23.0 was used for statistical analysis of data. The changes in bone levels were measured and compared between the two groups using the Mann-Whitney U test, with no significant difference. Bone density was analyzed by an independent sample t-test, p value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Again, no significant difference in bone density was observed between both groups at all three instances. Therefore, it can be concluded that local injection of PRP after immediate implant placement did not show any decrease in marginal bone loss or improvement in bone density. This trial is registered with NCT04650763.