In oral surgery, bleeding associated with antiplatelet agents is a frightening situation to deal with, from a simple extraction to more complicated surgeries such as implant, periodontal or orthognathic surgeries. For this reason, each dentist needs to balance the risk of interrupting or not the antiplatelet agent. Systemic complications associated with the interruption of the drug outweigh the haemorrhagic complication associated with continuation of the same. Moreover, oral surgeries are considered at low risk of haemorrhage and hemostatic measure are in most of the cases enough to prevent excessive bleeding or platelet transfusion. In these situations, clinicians are in front of a question: Is bleeding worse than dying? Meaning that on one side, bleeding associated with continuation of antiplatelet agent, on the other side the remote but significant chance of lethal cardiovascular event. The decision should be obvious: stopping antiplatelet agent monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy is not anymore acceptable. Furthermore, special attention should be given to all those patients on dual antiplatelet therapy or combined anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy because the risk of bleeding will be always higher compared to antiplatelet monotherapy and the anti-haemorrhagic measures such as gauze compression, collagen sponge, topical thrombin and sutures, are even more indispensable. From this point for a correct management of these drugs and in order to provide the best treatment to the patient, clinical history knowing the risk of thromboembolic event, additional antiplatelet tests, consultation with the cardiologist would be necessary and a teaching session and recommendations for the patient to explain how to manage at home post-operative bleeding is essential.
Keywords:Anti-Platelets Agents; Oral Surgery; Hemostatic Measures; Thrombosis; Oral Hemorrhages

Objectives:Compare the volumetric changes and its long – term stability generated by guided bone regeneration techniques versus connective tissue grafts in the second phase of integrated implants, as well as to compare the aesthetic results obtained with them.
Materials and Methods:A bibliographic review is carried out in relation to articles published in the last 10 years in various languages, including several not included in this range given their interest, being grouped according to year and similarity.
Results:The data show volume gain in the aesthetic sector with both procedures: guided bone regeneration and connective tissue grafting; obtaining a percentage of unit recession over implants and volume increase of up to 89,6 % by the second procedure [14].
In terms of dimensional stability with one-year results, vestibular volume was stable, not showing statistically significant results between both procedures, although in terms of contraction it is less for the connective tissue graft [11].
Conclusion:Within the limitations of the present review, it can be concluded that volume increase is possible with both procedures, being two highly predictable procedures with one-year results, obtaining stable values. More long-term studies are needed to continue assessing this dimensional stability over time [11]. Satisfactory aesthetic results are produced with both techniques because they are related, although ITC is considered the gold standard for soft tissue augmentation in a second surgical phase, obtaining more satisfactory values [1,5-7].
Keywords:Guided Bone Regeneration; Connective Tissue Graft; Aesthetic Sector