Partial Edentulism
Conditions
Keywords
membranes, Mucograft, Dynamatrixw, ridge, preservation, bone, allograft, extraction, site, healing
Brief summary
The purpose of the study is to compare one material called Mucograft with another material called Dynamatrix. These materials are used as a type of a barrier (made from pig material also known as porcine material) in a preservation technique to increase the thickness and width of tissues at a tooth extraction site. The investigators want to see if one works better than the other or if they work equally as well. These materials are made up of collagens, which are naturally occurring proteins found in the skin, specifically connective tissue. Dynamatrix is made up of many types of collagens whereas Mucograft is only made of fewer collagens. These materials have been given something called a 510(k) status by the FDA. This means that the FDA determines them to be equivalent to another product that they have previously approved. You will be put into one of two groups at random, and will not know which one you are in. Like flipping a coin, you will have a 50/50 chance to be in either one of the two groups. You will either be in a group using Mucograft or in a group using Dynamatrix. Both of these materials are regularly used in the dental clinics.
Detailed description
A) Aim/Hypothesis/Objective The objective of this study is to compare two different membranes, Mucograft and Dynamatrix, clinically, radiographically, and histologically when used for the ridge preservation procedure in combination with bone allograft at the extraction site in terms of soft and hard tissue remodeling after 4 months healing period. Hypothesis 1. MucograftTM will exhibit greater increase or preservation of the thickness and width of keratinized tissue than DynamatrixTM at the extraction site. 2. MucograftTM will exhibit greater preservation of the alveolar bone width and height than DynamatrixTM at the extraction site. 3. MucograftTM will exhibit greater preservation of the soft and hard tissue height than DynamatrixTM at the adjacent teeth. 4. MucograftTM will exhibit a better outcome than DynamatrixTM in the histological and histomorphometric results of the soft and hard tissue healing. Specific Aims 1. Primary aim The primary aim is to compare MucograftTM when used as a barrier membrane in the ridge preservation technique to increase or preserve the thickness and width of keratinized tissue at the extraction site in comparison to DynamatrixTM. 2. Secondary aims The secondary aims are to compare clinically, radiographically, and histologically MucograftTM with DynamatrixTM in relation to: 1. Changes of the alveolar bone height and width at the extraction site. 2. Changes of the soft and hard tissues at the adjacent teeth. 3. Histological and histomorphometric assessment of the soft and hard tissue healing at the extraction site.
Interventions
DEVICEMucograft
Mucograft Collagen Matrix
DEVICEDynamatrix
Dynamatrix
Sponsors
Tufts University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Be at least 18 years of age. 2. Have unsalvageable non-adjacent non-molar teeth: maxillary incisors, canines, and premolars, and mandibular canines and premolars that require an extraction with bone augmentation planned for delayed implant placement. If a subject has multiple teeth to be extracted, only one tooth will be included in the study. 3. Patients who are currently treatment planned in the Tufts University School of Dental Medicine (TUSDM) periodontology clinic to receive bone augmentation and delayed implant placement and meet all medical and dental requirements of the TUSDM periodontology clinic for periodontal surgery (e.g., subjects with no diseases or medication allergies contraindicating periodontal surgery). 4. Display no evidence of acute periodontal infection: e.g., abscess, suppuration, severe swelling and/or spontaneous bleeding. 5. Smoke less than 10 cigarettes per day. 6. Not participating in any other dental research study for the duration of this study.
Exclusion criteria
1. Have any known disease that interferes with periodontal surgery and would not allow the patient to be treatment planned for the procedures in the TUSDM periodontology clinic (e.g., severe anemia, low white blood cell count, bleeding or coagulation disorder, uncontrolled hypertension, recent myocardial infarction (within 6 months of enrollment), poorly controlled diabetes, HIV/AIDS (self-reported), history of or currently undergoing head and neck radiation, history of or currently taking bisphosphonates). 2. Have a history of severe psychological conditions or limited mental capacity. 3. Be a pregnant or lactating female (self-reported) (following TUSDM periodontology clinic guidelines elective surgical procedures and radiographs/CBCT scans are usually postponed until after delivery). 4. Individuals opposed to having porcine derived materials placed in their mouth.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Compare Barrier Membranes by Examining Keratinized Tissue | 4-6 Months after surgical procedure | The primary aim is to compare MucograftTM when used as a barrier membrane in the ridge preservation technique to increase or preserve the thickness and width of keratinized tissue at the extraction site in comparison to DynamatrixTM. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Alveolar Bone Height | 4-6 Months after surgical procedure | Compare clinically, radiographically, and histologically MucograftTM with DynamatrixTM in relation to changes of the alveolar bone height at the extraction site. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Pre-assignment details
The Study PI has passed away. All efforts to locate study data have been exhausted and there is no study data available
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Mucograft Placement of randomized membrane on half of subjects Mucograft
Mucograft: Mucograft Collagen Matrix | 0 |
| Dynamatrix Placement of randomized membrane on half of subjects Dynamatrix Membrane Placement
Dynamatrix: Dynamatrix | 0 |
| Total | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Region of Enrollment United States | — participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
Primary
Compare Barrier Membranes by Examining Keratinized Tissue
The primary aim is to compare MucograftTM when used as a barrier membrane in the ridge preservation technique to increase or preserve the thickness and width of keratinized tissue at the extraction site in comparison to DynamatrixTM.
Time frame: 4-6 Months after surgical procedure
Population: The Study PI has passed away. All efforts to locate study data have been exhausted and there is no study data available.
Secondary
Alveolar Bone Height
Compare clinically, radiographically, and histologically MucograftTM with DynamatrixTM in relation to changes of the alveolar bone height at the extraction site.
Time frame: 4-6 Months after surgical procedure
Population: The Study PI has passed away. All efforts to locate study data have been exhausted and there is no study data available.