View clinical trials related to Tooth Extraction.
Filter by:This study is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) which objective is to compare the effectiveness, efficacy and complication associated to an infiltrative anesthetic technique for the removal of lower third molars comparing it to the standard inferior alveolar nerve block using 4% articaine 1:100.000 epinephrine.
This study intends to investigate the relevant risk factors of perioperation complications or mortality in older patients with cardiac diseases undergoing teeth extraction surgery and this study aims to quantify the risk factors and then to establish the predictive scoring systems. Hypothesis:Preoperative parameters could predict postoperative complications.
Currently, it is not known what the dimensional changes might be following a molar site extraction which has been grafted with FDBA and covered with a collagen wound dressing. The purpose of the proposed study is to examine the clinical healing following ridge preservation using freeze dried bone allograft (FDBA) with a collagen wound dressing barrier (CollaPlug®) in a molar extraction site. I
The rationale of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Axiostat hemostatic dental dressing in achieving hemostasis post-extraction and determining its effect on pain and healing of the extraction wound, compared to control, i.e. conventional method of extraction in patients on oral anti-platelet therapy.
This study will be a randomized clinical trial involving a total of 24 subjects. The investigators propose to recruit subjects into 2 groups: 1) Extraction treated with xenograft bone substitute (BioOss Collagen®) + collagen dressing (HeliPlug®), 2) Extraction treated with xenograft bone substitute (BioOss Collagen®) + 3D-collagen matrix (Mucograft Seal®). All subjects recruited will have already been approved and treatment planned for extraction + implant placement by non-study personnel to avoid any potential conflict of interest. All subjects will have radiographs that show the tooth planned for extraction. Each subject will be eligible for only 1 tooth extraction + dental implant rehabilitation. After tooth extraction, subjects will receive a standard site preservation therapy consisted with xenograft bone substitute + collagen dressing or the alternative site preservation therapy consisted with xenograft bone substitute + 3D-collagen matrix. After the conventional 6-month healing period, subjects will receive a dental implant in the previous extracted site. During the dental implant procedure, a 2x5mm bone core biopsy + a 2mm gingival biopsy will be obtained from the implant site. Biopsy samples will be stored for future histological and histochemical analysis. After dental implant placement, all subjects will receive a healing abutment for soft tissue healing prior to implant restoration. During the 6-month healing time after tooth extraction and site preservation therapy, subjects will return at week-1, week-2, week-4, month-3, and month-6 for intra-oral scanning for soft tissue volumetric acquirement. Subjects will receive a Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) prior to extraction for the baseline hard-tissue volume measurement and appropriate extraction planning and at 6-month post-extraction for volumetric measurement and appropriate implant treatment planning. Hard tissue analysis will be performed to compare linear ridge remodeling (baseline vs. 6-month healing). CBCT images will be analyzed by non-contact reverse engineering system. Soft tissue volumetric analysis will be performed to compare the soft tissue healing between BioOss Collagen + Mucograft Seal and BioOss Collagen + Collagen Dressing. Images captured with an intra-oral scanner collected at baseline, week-1, -2, -4, month-3, and month-6.
Return to normal life and shortening rehabilitation period of patients after surgical removal of teeth is important and urgent social problem. In this regard, higher demands for quality of care and treatment of patients, which requires the development of new approaches to the treatment of patients, the introduction of new technologies and the associated development of new materials . Serious problem of contemporary oral and maxillo-facial surgery and dentistry is augmentation of bone defects generated during the surgical treatment of diseases and injuries of the bones. The results of surgical repair of bone defects are more dependent on the course of the process of reparative osteogenesis. Long-term periods of clinical studies indicate that reparative osteogenesis in posttraumatic bone defects is slow - months and years, and in some cases no bone defects filled with bone tissue. This project aims at addressing the preservation of bone volume in humans after tooth extraction using biomaterials with optimum performance. The practical significance of the project is to establish an effective tissue response and, thus, possible subsequent quality installation of dental implants. The proposed solution is based on the scientific development of the operative techniques, and a comparative analysis of several classes of biomaterials (xenogenic and synthetic analogs), including the use of biological precursors of bone apatite mineralization having osteoinductive (stimulating) properties.
The purpose of this study is to compare two different timings of restoring dental implants that are placed right after tooth extraction: The test group will have the provisional crown placed at the time of implant placement. The control group will have the tooth removed and the implant placed at the same appointment but restorations placed after 4 months. Both procedures currently are accepted methods for replacing missing teeth but direct comparisons of the two procedures are lacking. The results of this study should aid clinicians in selecting the best timing for restoring implants for their patients. The hypothesis is that immediate restoration might increase aesthetic outcomes, e.g. less mucosal recession.
This entire protocol involves procedures that are standard care. The purpose of the research is to evaluate whether there are any differences in new bone formation following tooth extraction and grafting of the extraction socket with either 100% mineralized FDBA (FDBA) or a combination of 70% mineralized & 30% demineralized FDBA (DFDBA). Both FDBA and DFDBA are commonly used in dentistry for this purpose. Until recently, there has been no human evidence of differences in new bone formation with one material versus another. Recently, DFDBA has been shown to provide a greater percentage of vital bone formation than FDBA. No studies have been done on materials that provide a combination of demineralized and mineralized FDBA for ridge preservation. That is the purpose of this study. There will be two subject groups in this study. All subjects will require extraction of at least one non-molar tooth, followed by replacement of the missing teeth with dental implants. Each group will have 22 subjects. The primary distinction between groups will be the use of either a combination of 70% mineralized & 30% demineralized FDBA or 100% mineralized FDBA: Group 1 will have 70% mineralized & 30% demineralized FDBA grafted into the extraction socket for ridge preservation. Group 2 will have 100% mineralized FDBA grafted into the extraction socket for ridge preservation. The allocation of subjects into group 1 or 2 will based on numbers drawn from a stack of sealed envelopes. A small flap will be reflected to an extent about 3-4mm beyond the bony walls of the socket. A measuring stent will be placed and measurements of ridge width and ridge height will be taken and recorded to the nearest 0.5mm. Ridge width will be measured using a ridge caliper at a point approximately 4mm apical to the facial and lingual bony crest. Ridge height will also be measured. The tooth will be extracted and the subject will then be randomized by drawing a sealed envelope from the stack. Either 100% mineralized FDBA or a combination of 70% mineralized & 30% demineralized FDBA will be placed in the socket to restore the ridge to appropriate contour. A dense polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane will then be placed over the socket orifice extending about 3mm beyond the bony socket walls. A PTFE suture will be placed over the membrane to secure it in place. Primary closure will not be attempted. The patient will be seen 7-10 days after extraction/ridge preservation to assess healing. The subject will be seen again 21-28 days to remove the PTFE membrane and to assess clinical healing. At the time of implant placement, the measuring stent and caliper will be used to determine the ridge width and ridge height again. The implant site will be prepared using a hollow trephine which allows retention of the bony core. The bone removed from the osteotomy site remaining in the trephine will be prepared for histologic examination and analyzed for new bone growth. The following histologic parameters will be measured: percent vital bone formation; percent residual graft material; and, percent nonmineralized connective tissue/bone marrow. Following initial preparation of the implant site with the trephine, an implant of the appropriate length and diameter will be placed. A healing abutment will then be placed. All subjects will be examined at 7-10 days following implant placement. The study will end at the time of this follow up visit. The patient will then be referred to his/her restorative dentist for final restoration.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of TT-173 in healthy volunteers after tooth extraction.
The purpose of this study is to compare cortical and cancellous freeze-dried bone allograft (FDBA) materials in the preservation of alveolar bone following extraction of non-molar teeth. The primary objective is to histologically evaluate and compare the healing of extraction sockets of non-molar teeth grafted with cortical FDBA versus cancellous FDBA for ridge preservation.