Skip to content

Comparison of the effects of two incision designs; Double flap and Periosteal releasing, on soft tissue changes following guided bone regeneration (GBR)

Comparison of the effects of two incision designs; Double flap and Periosteal releasing, on soft tissue changes following guided bone regeneration, in patients with horizontal ridge defect on posterior mandible

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
IRCT
Registry ID
IRCT20100427003813N13
Enrollment
24
Registered
2023-03-06
Start date
2023-01-21
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2023-03-13

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

Conditions

Severe horizontal alveolar bone deformity(Seibert Class I).

Interventions

Intervention 1: Intervention group: The surgical method adopted in this group to reduce tension for flap advancement includes partial thickness flap elevation, which leaves the periosteal layer on the

Sponsors

Babol University of Medical Sciences
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
21 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Has severe horizontal alveolar bone deformity(Seibert Class I) and requires guided bone regeneration treatment in the posterior region of the mandible

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: History of smoking History of systemic disease History of unexplained allergies

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The amount of flap advancement during surgery. Timepoint: During surgery, before tension freeing the flap with one of techniques and after that. Method of measurement: Measuring the amount of the flap advancement compared to its base during surgery with UNC-15 probe.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Membrane exposure. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: Did membrane exposed in the mouth in follow-up stages or not?.;Infection. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: Is there pus at the surgical site in the follow-up stages or not?.;Paraesthesia. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: Is there sensory disorders related to surgery in the follow-up stages or not?.;Continuous discomfort. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: Is there any expression of discomfort in the surgical area by the patient in the follow-up stages or not?.;Pain. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: by Visual Analogue Scale.;Swelling. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: by Visual Analogue Scale.;Bleeding. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: by Visual Analogue Scale.;Healing of surgery site. Timepoint: 3rd day and 1, 2, 4, 12 and 24 weeks after surgery. Method of measurement: by Wound healing index.

Countries

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Contacts

Public ContactNiloofar Jenabian

Babol University of Medical Sciences

n.jenabian@mubabol.ac.ir+98 11 1229 1408

Outcome results

None listed

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