Extracting Own Teeth
Conditions
Brief summary
The maxillary bone atrophies from traumatic, pathological events or related to physiological bone loss after tooth extraction, promoting a decrease in bone volume (vertical-horizontal) which has always been a crucial challenge for the clinician in order to obtain adequate rehabilitations prosthetics. The results of bone loss induced aesthetic and functional difficulties in achieving surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation of the right dental implant. Bone loss can be restored with autologous bone grafts and in large bone atrophy of the jaws require complex surgical techniques such as vascularized bone transplantation. As an alternative to the reconstruction of the maxillary tissue, several surgical techniques have been promoted to prevent or minimize bone resorption through market biomaterials with or without the patient's autologous bone. To reduce or counteract biological bone resorption, surgeons have promoted alveolar cavity preservation procedures (ASP) with autologous or heterologous graft materials. Recently, several studies have been published to evaluate the use of demineralized dentin material derived from the extracted tooth to obtain new bone in the maxillary post-extraction site. The aim of the study is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of the alveolar socket preservation technique.
Interventions
PROCEDUREcompare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP Group 2
The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 1
PROCEDUREComparison of different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP
The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 2
BIOLOGICALComparison different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP
The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 3
PROCEDUREThe aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP
The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 4
Sponsors
University of Foggia
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Healthy patients. * Diagnosis of tooth extraction in the upper or lower jaw. * Preservation procedures necessary to preserve jawbone volume with Guided * Bone regeneration with autologous or heterologous biomaterials.
Exclusion criteria
* Patients with high risk of receiving the intervention (pre-existing medical conditions/comorbidities/possible adverse events). * Patients with conditions that may interfere with the evaluation or confound the results. (e.g. they are already taking treatments) * Patients with refusal to participate, inability to provide data, or at high risk of loss to follow-up. * Patients with neoplastic pathologies. * Patients with Radio-Chemo therapies.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Comparison of different biomaterials at 4 months to assess the percentage of residual biomaterial remaining in situ and the percentage of newly formed bone in the regenerated area. | 4 months after surgery |
Countries
Italy
Outcome results
None listed