Alveolar Bone Loss
Conditions
Brief summary
The aim of the current study is to compare the effect socket sealing with flowable resin composite compared to dense polytetrafluoroethylene membrane after filling the extraction site with xenograft particles in terms of soft and hard tissue changes, procedural time, post operative pain, patients' satisfaction, and cost effectiveness.
Detailed description
Implant placement has become the gold standard for replacing missing teeth. One of the biggest challenges present when placing implants is the lack of sufficient bone dimensions. This deficiency may be a common finding due to the process of post extraction remodeling where both bone height and width are reduced, complicating implant placement. As a result, several procedures have been suggested to address this issue. Socket preservation is one of the most implemented procedures used today to limit the amount of bone lost during post extraction remodeling. The current study was designed to compare the effectiveness of using flowable composite resin for socket sealing as an alternative to using d-PTFE membranes, bypassing the added time, cost and trauma needed for tunnel preparation and membrane tucking.
Interventions
PROCEDURESocket preservation using xenograft and composite plug
Extraction of hopeless teeth will be followed by grafting the socket with xenograft and coverage with injected flowable composite plug which will then be stabilized using 5.0 polypropylene suture material with a figure of eight suture.
PROCEDURESocket preservation using xenograft and intentionally exposed d-PTFE
Extraction of hopeless teeth will be followed by grafting the socket with xenograft and coverage with d-PTFE membrane which will the be left exposed intentionally. This will be followed by securing the membrane using 5.0 polypropylene suture material with a figure of eight suture.
Sponsors
Cairo University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
20 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Patients having single non-adjacent hopeless maxillary tooth in the esthetic zone that are indicated for extraction. * Patients with healthy systemic condition. * Patients aged from 20 to 70 years old. * Good oral hygiene. * Accepts 4 months follow-up period (cooperative patients).
Exclusion criteria
* Systemic diseases or medications that might affect bone metabolism, increase surgical risk or complicate post-operative healing. * Previous bone augmentation to implant site. * Untreated periodontal diseases. * Para-functional habits such as bruxism and clenching. * History of radiation therapy to the head and neck. * Heavy smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes per day). * Pregnant or lactating females. * Alcoholism or drug abuse. * Psychiatric problems.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in horizontal bone dimension | 4 Months | Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Millimeters) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Keratinized tissue thickness | 4 Months | Millimeters |
| Procedural time | During surgery | Stopwatch |
| Change in Vertical bone dimension | 4 Months | Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (Millimeters) |
| Patient Satisfaction | 2 weeks | Three questions questionnaire (Kiyak, Hohl et al. 1984). 7-point response scale: 7= very likely (or very satisfied), 1= not at all likely (or not at all satisfied) |
| Incidence of complications | 4 Months | Checklist |
| Post-operative pain | 1 week | Visual analogue scale (Santos, Botelho et al. 2021) (0-10) 0=No discomfort 10=Worst discomfort |
Countries
Egypt
Contacts
Primary ContactYoussef Meshreky, Master degree
Outcome results
None listed