Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiographic success of Ankaferd blood stopper (ABS) alone or in conjunction with low-level laser therapy (LLLT), as a pulpotomy agent in primary teeth and compare it with the formocresol (FC) alone or in conjunction with LLLT. Subjects and Methods: Children aged between 3-9 years were included in the present study following specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The enrolled children had a total of 64 carious primary teeth that are indicated for pulpotomy treatment. The involved teeth were equally categorized into four groups according to the type of pulpotomy agent: ABS alone (G I), ABS followed by LLLT (G II), FC (G III), and FC followed by LLLT (G IV). The clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed after 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months following specific designed criteria. Results:The results of this study revealed that the use of ABS had better clinical and radiographic success rates when compared with the FC either alone or in conjunction with low-level laser therapy but without statistically significant. Also, the results showed that the use of LLLT improve the clinical and radiographic success outcomes of both of ABS and FC but without statistically significant. Conclusion: ABS could be used as successful alternative to FC during pulpotomy treatment. Low-Level Laser Therapy has positive effect on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the ABS and FC pulpotomy medicaments.

Objective:The aim of the present study was to adjunct the healing of intra bony periodontal deep pockets using minimal invasive technique and materials (injectable platelet rich fibrin-I PRF-). Subjects & Method: A total of 70 medically healthy adult subjects with chronic periodontitis in a randomized controlled clinical trial were divided into 3 groups; PRP group, iPRF group & control group. PRP preparation: Two Acid citric dextrose (ACD) 8.5 ml tubes of whole blood were centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 7 min at room temperature using Heraeus Megafuge 16R centrifuge. IPRF preparation: Two tubes (without anticoagulant) of 10 ml of whole blood were centrifuged at 700 rpm for 3 min at room temperature using Heraeus Megafuge 16R centrifuge. Results: Postoperative evaluation: I-PRF group showed the highest reduction of probing depth from baseline, while PRP group came second followed by the control group which had the lowest reduction in probing depth. Conclusion: the repeated injection of i-PRF showing a stronger and more durable effect, since it has number of growth factors which are responsible for tissue regeneration capable of inducing fibroblast behavior.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of xenograft and PRF alone, or mixed with metformin, in horizontal ridge augmentation with split-crest technique, for implant placement. Patients & Methods: Eighteen patients with narrow ridges were divided into Group 1: Patients received a split crest technique (SCT) with implant placement and xenograft. Group 2: Patients received an SCT with implant placement and PRF only. Group 3: Patients received an SCT with implant placement and metformin mixed with PRF. Implant stability was recorded immediately after implant placement, and at loading. Modified gingival index (mGI), modified plaque index (mPI), and probing depth (PD) were recorded and repeated after one, 3, and 6 months of prostheses. Alveolar crest width (ACW), crestal bone loss (CBL) as well as relative bone density (RBD) evaluated immediately after surgery, at the time of loading, and 6 months after loading. Results: The mean Alveolar Crest Width (ACW) measurements of the present study showed significantly higher ACW in (SCT / PRF) and (SCT / metformin / PRF) than (SCT / xenograft). CBL at loading and 6 months in favor of xenograft and metformin mixed with PRF groups. Conclusion: Compared to PRF alone, xenograft and 1% MF gel mixed with PRF might provide better implant stability, and less CBL. Both xenograft and 1%MF mixed with PRF may be used as peri-implant graft materials with expected comparable clinical outcomes.

Objective:The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of xenograft and PRF alone, or mixed with metformin, in horizontal ridge augmentation with split-crest technique, for implant placement. Subjects & Methods: eighteen patients with narrow ridges were divided into Group 1: Patients received a split crest technique (SCT) with implant placement and xenograft. Group 2: Patients received an SCT with implant placement and PRF only. Group 3: Patients received an SCT with implant placement and metformin mixed with PRF. Implant stability was recorded immediately after implant placement, and at loading. Modified gingival index (mGI), modified plaque index (mPI), and probing depth (PD) were recorded and repeated after one, 3, and 6 months of prostheses. Alveolar crest width (ACW), crestal bone loss (CBL) as well as relative bone density (RBD) evaluated immediately after surgery, at the time of loading, and 6 months after loading. Results: The mean Alveolar Crest Width (ACW) measurements of the present study showed significantly higher ACW in (SCT / PRF) and (SCT / metformin / PRF) than (SCT / xenograft). CBL at loading and 6 months in favor of xenograft and metformin mixed with PRF groups. Conclusion: Compared to PRF alone, xenograft and 1% MF gel mixed with PRF might provide better implant stability, and less CBL. Both xenograft and 1%MF mixed with PRF may be used as peri-implant graft materials with expected comparable clinical outcomes.