Comparison of Piezoelectric Split-crest Technique Versus Expansion Using Hand Driven Ridge Expanders in Treatment of Maxillary Narrow Ridges

Status

UNKNOWN

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT05141331

Enrollment

Registered

2021-12-02

Start date

2021-05-20

Completion date

2022-07-31

Last updated

2021-12-03

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

Conditions

Edentulous Alveolar Ridge

Brief summary

Comparison of Piezoelectric split-crest technique versus expansion using Hand Driven Ridge Expanders in treatment of Maxillary Narrow Ridges

Interventions

DEVICEpiezoelectric

Comparing Piezoelectric split-crest technique versus expansion using Hand Driven Ridge Expanders in treatment of Maxillary Narrow Ridges

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to 70 Years

Healthy volunteers

Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Participants are free from any systemic diseases. * Participant have missing one or two premolars or molars with sufficient alveolar ridge height and insufficient alveolar ridge buccolingual (BL) width that interfere with conventional straight forward implant placement. * The minimum BL ridge width included in the study will be 3.5 mm to facilitate ridge splitting and expansion

Exclusion criteria

* Patients with residual infections in the edentulous areas. * Medically compromised groups. * Smokers and patients with poor oral hygiene.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
bone width	5 months	bone width gain in millimeters

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
implant stability	5 months	implant stability measured with periotest

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026