FindTrial
Sign In

Clinical efficacy comparison of atelocollagen cone vs. deproteinized bovine bone mineral covered with a collagen membrane in ridge preservation: A retrospective study

Radiographic evaluation of atelocollagen cone vs. deproteinized bovine bone mineral covered with a collagen membrane in ridge preservation: A retrospective study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ChiCTR
Registry ID
ChiCTR2200066244
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2022-11-29
Start date
2022-12-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-05-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

dentition defect

Interventions

Atelocollagen cone group (Using an atelocollagen cone in ridge preservation):None
DBBM+CM group (Using DBBM+CM in ridge preservation):None

Sponsors

School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 80 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: a) >=18 years of age; b) received only ARP for one or more fresh extraction sockets using DBBM + CM or atelocollagen cone; c) buccal bone wall of the site< 1 mm or existed a slight bone defect (<50%). d) volunteer to sign the informed content and cooperate with regular check-up.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: a) history of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the past 5 years; b) sites with acute inflammation; c) females in pregnancy or lactation; d) bone diseases such as cysts or tumors; history of intravenous bisphosphonate.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
?rARW;—

Countries

China

Contacts

Public ContactBin Shi

School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University

shibin_dentist@whu.edu.cn+86 13808643395

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ChiCTR (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026