Loss of Teeth Due to Extraction
Conditions
Brief summary
This study is being conducted to compare the outcomes of two separate surgical techniques used in tooth extraction and ridge preservation. Ridge preservation is done to potentially minimize the amount of bone loss that occurs between the tooth extraction and implant or bridge placement, as compared to leaving the extraction site empty. There are two techniques that are commonly used for these procedures, either to close the surgical site of the extracted tooth with sutures (closed flap technique) or to leave the extraction site open to heal naturally (open flap technique). In the open flap technique there will be sutures used to secure and hold down the material used to cover the wound, called a non-resorbable membrane. The flaps will remain in their natural position, the site will fill up naturally with new tissue from the bottom up and then close itself in from the sides. The investigators want to see which technique offers better healing and reduces bone loss.
Detailed description
Study design will be a single center, randomized controlled trial, split mouth designed study, to compare the bone dimensional changes following extraction and ridge preservation in surgical techniques that leave the flap open and closed. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the bone dimensional changes following extraction and ridge preservation with primary coverage (closed flap technique) in comparison to secondary intention (open flap technique). The investigators hypothesize that the closed flap technique will have more potential to maintain vertical bone height when compared with the open flap technique, due to less susceptibility from infection and inflammation. Secondary aim is to evaluate patients' self-report of postoperative discomfort. The investigators hypothesize that open flap technique will have less post-operative pain/discomfort due to less flap dissection and elevation when compared to closed flaps. Tertiary aim is to have a histomorphometric examination and to assess the formation of new bone. The investigators hypothesize that better bone volume percentage will be observed in closed flap technique when compared to open flap technique. The primary outcome is the mean difference in alveolar bone height change between groups.
Interventions
DEVICECytoplast® TXT-200
Non-resorbable membrane
DEVICEMinerOss® Cortical and Cancellous Chips (FDBA)
Mixture of allograft mineralized cortical and cancellous chips
PROCEDUREOpen Flap Technique
After extraction, the socket wound is left open to heal by secondary intention
PROCEDUREClosed Flap Technique
After extraction, the socket wound is closed by primary closure
Sponsors
Tufts University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Patient who is treatment planned at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine (TUSDM) for extraction and future 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). * Patient must have bilateral extraction (canine to molar) sites of teeth located on the same arch (e.g. upper right and upper left) treatment planned for future implant placement at TUSDM. * The number of teeth planned for extraction (either one or two adjacent) and ridge preservation should match the same number of teeth (either one or two adjacent) from the contra-lateral side on the same arch. * Presence of at least 3 intact bony walls and at least half of the fourth bony wall at each site as determined by bone sounding at Visit 1.
Exclusion criteria
* 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 (150/90), recent myocardial infarction (within 6 months of enrollment), diabetes (HbA1C ≥7%), HIV/AIDS (self-reported), history of or currently undergoing head and neck radiation, history of or currently taking bisphosphonates). * Subject who has a disease or condition that may affect hard and soft tissue healing (e.g., previous or current head and neck radiation therapy, long term steroid use defined as more than two weeks in the past two years). * Subject who has diseases that affect bone metabolism (e.g., osteoporosis, osteopenia). * Pregnancy (self-reported) * Current Smokers * Extraction socket with \> 50% bone loss on the buccal or lingual/palatal bone as determined by bone sounding at Visit 1. * Allergic to gentamycin, povidone-iodine, or surfactants as trace amounts may be contained in the MinerOss®
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Difference in Alveolar Bone Height Change | < 6 months post extraction and ridge preservation | Models/casts will be made in stone using the impressions. A stent will be made to measure the height and width of the alveolar ridge. Ridge height will be measured before tooth extraction, and 3-5 months after ridge preservation. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Post-operative Pain/Discomfort | Up to 16 days post extraction and ridge preservation | Subjects will be asked to rate their pain/discomfort on a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire (scores on a scale of 0-10, 10 to be the worst) |
| Percentage New Bone Formation | Up to 6 months post extraction and ridge preservation | Histomorphometric analysis of bone core biopsy to determine percent new bone formation |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Pre-assignment details
Two randomization schemes were created using the statistical package R Version 2.11.1. One randomization scheme was used if the subject has more than 1 set of qualifying sites (the inclusion criteria specify bilateral sites) and randomized which set would be included in the study. The other randomization scheme was used to randomize which side is in Group 1 and which side is in Group 2. The two sites (one set) chosen to be in the study each had a 50% chance of being in either group.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| All Study Participants (OFT vs CFT) Open flap technique (OFT) with secondary wound closure (test group) Closed flap technique (CFT) with primary wound closure (control group). | 10 |
| Total | 10 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | All Study Participants (OFT vs CFT) |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 56.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1 |
| Sex: Female, Male gender Female | 2 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male gender Male | 8 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 10 | 0 / 10 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 10 | 0 / 10 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 10 | 0 / 10 |
Outcome results
Primary
Mean Difference in Alveolar Bone Height Change
Models/casts will be made in stone using the impressions. A stent will be made to measure the height and width of the alveolar ridge. Ridge height will be measured before tooth extraction, and 3-5 months after ridge preservation.
Time frame: < 6 months post extraction and ridge preservation
Population: 20 sites were analyzed of 10 participants, 10 OFT sites and 10 CFT sites, 1 OFT and 1 CFT for each subject, were analyzed
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OFT vs CFT | Mean Difference in Alveolar Bone Height Change | OFT | 7.5 mm | Standard Deviation 1.8 |
| OFT vs CFT | Mean Difference in Alveolar Bone Height Change | CFT | 8.1 mm | Standard Deviation 1.9 |
Secondary
Percentage New Bone Formation
Histomorphometric analysis of bone core biopsy to determine percent new bone formation
Time frame: Up to 6 months post extraction and ridge preservation
Population: 16 sites were analyzed of 8 participants, 8 OFT sites and 8 CFT sites were analyzed
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| OFT vs CFT | Percentage New Bone Formation | 34 percentage of new bone formation | Standard Deviation 15 |
| Closed Flap Technique | Percentage New Bone Formation | 39 percentage of new bone formation | Standard Deviation 10 |
Secondary
Post-operative Pain/Discomfort
Subjects will be asked to rate their pain/discomfort on a visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire (scores on a scale of 0-10, 10 to be the worst)
Time frame: Up to 16 days post extraction and ridge preservation
Population: 10 subject received CFT and OFT simultaneously. Post-operative pain/discomfort comparing the two techniques were analyzed
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OFT vs CFT | Post-operative Pain/Discomfort | 24 hours | 1.1 VAS(scale 0-10), scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
| OFT vs CFT | Post-operative Pain/Discomfort | 2 weeks | 0.4 VAS(scale 0-10), scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.5 |
| Closed Flap Technique | Post-operative Pain/Discomfort | 24 hours | 3 VAS(scale 0-10), scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.8 |
| Closed Flap Technique | Post-operative Pain/Discomfort | 2 weeks | 0.8 VAS(scale 0-10), scores on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |