View clinical trials related to Alveolar Ridge Augmentation.
Filter by:A clinical Trial, comparing two different techniques to elevate the maxillary sinus floor membrane to allow for simultaneous dental implant placement in the severely atrophied maxillary ridges.Both using allogenic bone substitute as the bone graft material. One technique is the open lateral window technique and the second is the closed crestal technique.
The aim of the study was to compare efficacy of autogenous onlay and inlay grafts for anterior maxillary horizontal ridge augmentation.
This study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of different staged ridge-splitting techniques for management of severely resorbed lower jaws in the posterior region. The study is designed as a clinical trial, so that three different interventions would be compared for a conclusion highlighting the relative best of them.
The goal of this clinical study is to investigate the effectiveness of the split-box technique in systemically healthy, non-smoking, over 18 years of age, participants with narrow crests (<5mm bone width) and adequate bone height (>12mm). The main questions it aims to answer are: - The primary objective of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of the split-box technique by evaluating the change in width and height of the alveolar bone. - The secondary objective is to evaluate the superiority of the split-box technique and its modifications in terms of the amount of bone gain. According to the 3D topography of the alveolar ridge of the patients before augmentation, split box or one of its modifications, reverse split box or sliding split box techniques were selected and applied. (split box was applied if the bone thickness was more than 3 mm at the top of the crest and did not increase towards the lower border at the alveolar bone, reverse split box technique was applied if the bone thickness was more than 3 mm at the top of the crest and increased towards the lower border at the alveolar bone, sliding split box was applied if the bone thickness was less than 3 mm at the top of the crest but the bone thickness increases towards the lower border at the alveolar bone.)
To rehabilitate patients after the loss of their own teeth, dental implants are nowadays the therapy of choice if the indication is suitable. In order to successfully place implants in the patient's jaw, a sufficient supply of bone in vertical and horizontal dimensions is necessary. Human bone is generally always in the process of reconstruction and changes over time. If there is not enough substance left for rehabilitation with implants due to previous degradation of the alveolar bone, bone augmentation can be performed. For this purpose, mainly autogenous, xenogenic or allogenic bone material is used. Bone augmentation using allografts shows satisfactory results in clinical use and has advantages such as elimination of morbidity associated with autogenous bone graft harvesting. In addition to the use of conventional and prefabricated graft blocks, it is now possible to produce individual allogeneic bone blocks using computer-aided design based on the patient's radiological data. After this bone has been placed in the patient, it can be restored with implants after a healing phase of about 6 months. In order to make the treatment as predictable as possible, it is crucial to know how a bone augmentation changes over time and whether bone remodelling or resorption occurs. How allogeneic bone blocks behave with regard to their stability and treatment success has already been investigated in some studies, but to date there is no study that deals with the difference between prefabricated, conventional and individually manufactured CAD/CAM allogeneic bone blocks. By retrospectively analysing existing clinical data, the aim is to compare how the two methods, prefabricated bone blocks and CAD/CAM-fabricated bone blocks, perform during the healing phase. A virtual volume analysis method of 3D digital imaging data (cone beam computed tomography scans) will be performed, which allows not only linear punctual evaluation but also area and volumetric analysis. Furthermore, the in the grafts inserted dental implants will be examined in terms of survival rate, complication rate and marginal bone loss by evaluation of the available follow-up records of up to 12 years.
The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of a natural and synthetic bone substitute in preserving the alveolar ridge (bone) of a single- rooted tooth after an extraction. The main question it aims to answer: Is there a difference between natural (Bio-Oss®) and synthetic (Bonalive®) bone substitutes in preserving the alveolar ridge dimensions based on changes in the width of the alveolar ridge (expressed in millimetres) from augmentation (baseline) to 24-week follow-up (post augmentation)? Participants will have a tooth extraction and a bone substitute will be inserted into their socket immediately after. Participants will be divided into two equal groups and those in group A will receive Bio-Oss® while those in group B will receive Bonalive®. In both groups measurements of the alveolar bone will be taken when the bone substitute is inserted and 24 weeks after the insertion of the bone substitute. These measurements will be used to compare the effectiveness of Bio-Oss® and Bonalive in preserving the alveolar bone of a tooth after an extraction.
Soft tissue contour and radiographic evaluation of alveolar ridge preservation using different techniques Background: Following tooth extraction, the alveolar ridge undergoes an inevitable remodeling process which influences future implant therapy or prosthetic rehabilitation in the edentulous area. In an attempt to attenuate the loss of hard and soft tissue after tooth loss, alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) immediately after complete tooth extraction could minimize the need for ancillary ridge augmentation or soft tissue grafting. Different techniques and barrier membranes has been proposed to achieve the sealing of extraction socket. Aim: To investigate the effect of different techniques and barrier membranes for the soft tissue contour and morphological change of alveolar ridge after ARP Methods: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial and recruited patients, who require ARP for the purpose of implant placement or prosthodontic rehabilitation. After the tooth extraction, patients were randomly allocated to one of the following groups: ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute and (a) spontaneous healing (control), (b) covered with a free palatal graft, (c) or covered with pedical palatal graft, (d) covered with a collagen membrane, (e) covered with a non-resorbable high-density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane. 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks following tooth extraction and ARP, clinical profilometric and radiographic evaluations were performed to analyze the change of hard and soft tissue contour. Moreover, and the need for additional guided bone regeneration (GBR) or soft tissue augmentation were assessed prior implants or fixed prosthesis placement.
This study will compare peri implant tissue stability following connective tissue graft harvested fromLateral Palate or the Tuberosity Area. As far as we know, it remains controversial whether peri-implant soft tissue stability could be achieved after soft tissue augmentation with the connective tissue graft from the tuberosity or the lateral palate. Soft tissue stability evaluated by intra oral scanner will be described as primary outcome.
The viability of Platelet Rich Fibrin (PRF) on enhancement of osseous and associated tissue healing has been substantiated well in literature. This study aimed to assess peri-implant soft and hard tissue changes after prosthetic loading of implants following socket preservation with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) in a 12-month period. This Study evaluated 48 patients who were randomly divided into two groups for anterior ridge preservation with PRF and FDBA. At 12 months after implant placement and prosthetic delivery, bone loss was evaluated radiographically while soft tissue changes were evaluated by measuring gingival recession, papilla index, and bleeding on probing (BOP). The differences between the PRF and FDBA groups were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and student's t-test (P<0.05).
When the practitioners have to place an implant, it is necessary to have a sufficient amount of bone. This study propose to manage clinical situations by an approach using guided bone regeneration using an L-PRF bone block (composite graft composed of a xenograft, a membrane from the patient's blood and a collagenous membrane) after a short healing period of 6 to 8 weeks after tooth extraction. Alveolar ridge changes will be evaluated regarding soft and hard tissues up to 6 months.