Comparison of Two Different Membranes

A) Aim/Hypothesis/Objective The objective of this study is to compare two different membranes, Mucograft and Dynamatrix, clinically, radiographically, and histologically when used for the ridge preservation procedure in combination with bone allograft at the extraction site in terms of soft and hard tissue remodeling after 4 months healing period. Hypothesis 1. MucograftTM will exhibit greater increase or preservation of the thickness and width of keratinized tissue than DynamatrixTM at the extraction site. 2. MucograftTM will exhibit greater preservation of the alveolar bone width and height than DynamatrixTM at the extraction site. 3. MucograftTM will exhibit greater preservation of the soft and hard tissue height than DynamatrixTM at the adjacent teeth. 4. MucograftTM will exhibit a better outcome than DynamatrixTM in the histological and histomorphometric results of the soft and hard tissue healing. Specific Aims 1. Primary aim The primary aim is to compare MucograftTM when used as a barrier membrane in the ridge preservation technique to increase or preserve the thickness and width of keratinized tissue at the extraction site in comparison to DynamatrixTM. 2. Secondary aims The secondary aims are to compare clinically, radiographically, and histologically MucograftTM with DynamatrixTM in relation to: 1. Changes of the alveolar bone height and width at the extraction site. 2. Changes of the soft and hard tissues at the adjacent teeth. 3. Histological and histomorphometric assessment of the soft and hard tissue healing at the extraction site.