1. Adult patients (Age > 18 years) 2. Good general health (ASA 1,
Conditions
Interventions
polyethylene membrane from the National Metal and Materials Technology Center (MTEC) ,High density polytetrafluoroethylene membrane,
commercail membrane
Active Comparator Procedure/Surgery,Active Comparator Procedure/Surgery
polyethylene membrane,CytoplastTM Regentex TXT-
Sponsors
Faculty of Dentistry Thammasat University
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. Adult patients (Age > 18 years) 2. Good general health (ASA 1, 2) and not contraindication for extraction 3. The diagnosis and indications for extracting tooth are including: endodontic failure or complications (e.g. root fracture), unable to restore from severe caries or crown/root fracture, hopeless prognosis from periodontitis and for prosthodontics reasons. 4. Controlled periodontitis. 5. Smoking history 50%) and No sign of acute inflammation or infection/abscess. The condition of the buccal bone plate will be evaluated intra-surgically immediately after tooth extraction. All extraction sites must present with a minimum width of 2 mm of keratinized gingival tissue.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. Age <18 years. 2. Presence of relevant medical conditions: Patients with bone disease, diabetes mellitus, unstable or life-threatening conditions, or requiring antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients with medication of drugs influencing the bone metabolism or use of bisphosphonates. 3. Smoking status of more than 10 cigarettes/day. 4. Pregnancy or lactation. 5. Patients who cannot take impression (both conventional and digital) and CBCT. 6. Patients who have socket destruction more than 50% after extraction. 7. History of malignancy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy for malignancy in the past 5 years. 8. History of autoimmune disease or long-term prescribed of steroid drugs. 9. Lack of opposite occluding dentition in the area intended for extraction and subsequent implant placement; absence of adjacent teeth. 10. Presence of dehiscence or fenestration on bone wall of the socket. 11. Unwillingness to return for the follow-up examination
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| evaluate the clinical efficacy of Porous polyethylene membrane in comparison to commercial membrane 4month Clinical,Radiogragphic,Histological | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| dimensional change after tooth extraction with the use of porous polyethylene membrane or commercial 4month Clinical,Radiogragphic,Histological | — |
Countries
THAILAND
Contacts
Public ContactJirapa Wongpairojpanich
Department of Periodontics and Implant Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry Thammasat University, Rangsit
Outcome results
None listed