[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences & Hospital\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":222},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,10,0,[8,42,69,92,111,129,149,169,188,205],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":30,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":31,"startDateStruct":34,"completionDateStruct":36,"leadSponsor":38,"locationsCount":41},"100554951","phase-1-evaluation-of-2bromelain-gel-with-02chx-gel-as-subgingival-ldd-following-srp-in-stage-iiiii-and-grade-b-periodontitis--a-rct-100554951",false,"NCT06505759","Evaluation of 2%Bromelain Gel With 0.2%CHX Gel as Subgingival LDD Following SRP in Stage II\u002FIII and Grade B Periodontitis -A RCT","Evaluation of 2%Bromelain Gel With 0.2%Chlorhexidine Gel as Subgingival Local Drug Delivery Following Scaling and Root Planing in Stage II\u002FIII and Grade B Periodontitis -Randomized Control Clinical Trail","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient with have chronic periodontitis in the age group between 30-50 years.\n* Patients having ≥20 teeth.\n\n  -.Patients with radiographic evidence of bone loss in atleast two teeth.\n* Patients who are systematically healthy.\n* Patients with localized pockets with probing depth of ≤ 5mm.\n* Patients who are cooperative and able to attend the hospital for regular follow-up.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who have received any surgical or nonsurgical therapy during past 6months\n* Pregnant or lactating females.\n* Use of systemic antibiotics in the past 6 months.\n* Patient who are not willing to give a written informed consent",true,"ALL","30 Years","50 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},36,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"PHASE1","The current study is a prospective randomised study Evaluation of 2%Bromelain Gel With 0.2%Chlorhexidine Gel as Subgingival Local Drug Delivery Following Scaling and Root Planing in Stage II\u002FIII and Grade B Periodontitis",[28],"Periodontal Pocket","RECRUITING","2025-01-09",{"date":32,"type":33},"2025-01-13","ACTUAL",{"date":35,"type":33},"2024-07-01",{"date":37,"type":22},"2025-07",{"name":39,"class":40},"Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences & Hospital","OTHER",1,{"id":43,"slug":44,"hasResults":11,"nctId":45,"briefTitle":46,"officialTitle":47,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":48,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":50,"enrollmentInfo":51,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":53,"briefSummary":55,"conditions":56,"keywords":58,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":61,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":62,"startDateStruct":64,"completionDateStruct":66,"leadSponsor":68,"locationsCount":41},"100558511","evaluation-of-cross-linked-collagen-membrane-with-and-without-silk-fibroin-around-immediate-dental-implants-100558511","NCT06552065","Evaluation of Cross-linked Collagen Membrane With and Without Silk Fibroin Around Immediate Dental Implants","Comparative Evaluation of Cross-linked Collagen Membrane With and Without Silk Fibroin Around Immediate Dental Implants -Randomized Controlled Trial.","Inclusion Criteria\n\n* Systemically healthy patients in the age group of 18 to 55years.\n* Patients undergoing immediate implant placement with gingival thickness ≤ 1mm\n* Stage II \u002FStage III and Grade B Periodontitis patients.\n* Radiographic assessment using Radiovisiography (RVG) with grid.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients having allergies with collagen and silk products.\n* Medical conditions contraindicating surgical interventions.\n* Known smokers and alcoholic.\n* Acute infections at the site of extraction. Ex Abscess.\n* Patients who have undergone radiotherapy or chemotherapy.","18 Years","55 Years",{"count":52,"type":22},20,[54],"NA","Comparative evaluation of cross-linked collagen membrane with and without silk fibroin around Immediate Dental Implants -Randomized controlled trial.",[57],"Immediate Implant",[59],"Silk fibroin with collagen membrane","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2024-08-12",{"date":63,"type":33},"2024-08-13",{"date":65,"type":22},"2024-09",{"date":67,"type":22},"2025-08",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":70,"slug":71,"hasResults":11,"nctId":72,"briefTitle":73,"officialTitle":74,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":75,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":76,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":78,"briefSummary":79,"conditions":80,"keywords":82,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":84,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":85,"startDateStruct":87,"completionDateStruct":89,"leadSponsor":91,"locationsCount":41},"100557730","comparative-evaluation-of-implant-stability-soft--hard-tissue-healing-around-uv-activated-vs-conventional-implants-100557730","NCT06541912","Comparative Evaluation of Implant Stability, Soft & Hard Tissue Healing Around UV Activated vs Conventional Implants","Comparative Evaluation of Implant Stability, Soft and Hard Tissue Healing Around UV Activated Versus Conventional Implants - A Randomized Clinical Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* At east above 18 years of age\n* Patients who needs replacement for at least 2 missing teeth in the posterior region of mandible\n* Adequate bone volume to accommodate planned dental implants\n* Patients who will comply with oral health care instructions and necessary visits\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* General contraindications to dental implant treatment ( uncontrolled diabetes, severe cardiovascular or infectious disease)\n* Intravenous and oral bisphosphonate therapy\n* Unwillingness to return for the follow up examinations\n* Smokers\n* Patients who are psychologically unable to participate\n* Poor oral hygiene",{"count":77,"type":22},12,[54],"Research is to compare and evaluate the primary and secondary implant stability, healing of the soft tissue around UV activated implants and conventional implants.",[81],"UV Dental Implant",[83],"Dental Implants","2024-08-02",{"date":86,"type":33},"2024-08-07",{"date":88,"type":33},"2024-02-15",{"date":90,"type":22},"2026-03-25",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":93,"slug":94,"hasResults":11,"nctId":95,"briefTitle":96,"officialTitle":96,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":97,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":50,"enrollmentInfo":98,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":100,"briefSummary":101,"conditions":102,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":104,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":105,"startDateStruct":107,"completionDateStruct":109,"leadSponsor":110,"locationsCount":4},"100556829","simplified-papilla-preservation-flapsppf-and-enamel-matrix-derivativeemd-with-or-without-connective-tissuectg-wall-for-the-treatment-of-non-contained-infrabony-defects-a-randomized-controlled-clinical-trail-100556829","NCT06530199","Simplified Papilla Preservation Flap(SPPF) and Enamel Matrix Derivative(EMD) With or Without Connective Tissue(CTG) Wall for the Treatment of Non Contained Infrabony Defects. A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trail","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients willing to participate in the study.\n* Participants aged ≥18 years to 55 years.\n* Presented with non contained infra bony defects.\n* Presence of at least 1 non contained infra bony defect(IBD) with a pocket probing depth ≥6mm after reevaluation of the hygienic phase and a depth of IBD ≥3mm as detected on radiographs, with radiographic angulation of ≥37⸰ , and exhibiting a 1 or 2 wall infra bony defect15(assessed by a bone sounding and confirmed intrasurgically)\n* Patient's full mouth plaque score and bleeding score \\\u003C20% at the time of surgical procedure.\n* No history of periodontal surgery at the experimental site.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Grade III mobility, endodontically treated teeth.\n* Pregnant and lactating females.\n* History of tobacco smoking .\n* Patients with systemic disease.\n* Known allergy or hypersensitivity to EMD.\n* Presence of pulpal and peri apical involvement",{"count":99,"type":22},30,[54],"Research is to compare and evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the enamel matrix derivative with or without connective tissue wall graft for noncontained infrabony defects using simplified papilla preservation technique .",[103],"Intrabony Periodontal Defect","2024-07-27",{"date":106,"type":33},"2024-07-31",{"date":108,"type":22},"2024-07",{"date":37,"type":22},{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":112,"slug":113,"hasResults":11,"nctId":114,"briefTitle":115,"officialTitle":116,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":117,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":50,"enrollmentInfo":118,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":120,"briefSummary":121,"conditions":122,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":123,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":124,"startDateStruct":126,"completionDateStruct":127,"leadSponsor":128,"locationsCount":4},"100556295","comparing-photodisinfection-of-chitosan-np-enriched-icg-over-icg-as-adjunct-to-ofd-rct-100556295","NCT06523244","Comparing Photodisinfection of Chitosan NP Enriched ICG Over ICG as Adjunct to OFD: RCT","Comparison of Photo Disinfection With Chitosan Nanoparticles Enriched ICG Over ICG as an Adjunct to Open Flap Debridement in Stage II\u002FIII Grade B\u002FC Periodontitis. RCT","Inclusion criteria:\n\n* Systemically healthy subjects\n* Age group 30-55yrs.\n* Diagnosed with Stages II\u002FIII grade B\u002FC periodontitis.\n* Presenting with persistent pocket depth ≥5mm after initial non-surgical therapy.\n* Optimal plaque control\n* Good compliance\n\nExclusion criteria:\n\n* Subjects on antibiotic therapy within last six months of enrollment\n* Previous history of periodontal surgery\n* Allergy to drugs and materials used in this study\n* Pregnant woman\n* Subjects with deleterious habits like smoking, tobacco chewing.",{"count":119,"type":22},24,[54],"The current study is a prospective randomised study-Comparison of photodisinfection with chitosan nanoparticles enriched indocyanine green over indocyanine green as an adjunct to open flap debridement in the management of stage II\u002FIII grade B\u002FC periodontitis.",[28],"2024-07-26",{"date":125,"type":33},"2024-07-29",{"date":108,"type":22},{"date":67,"type":22},{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":130,"slug":131,"hasResults":11,"nctId":132,"briefTitle":133,"officialTitle":134,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":135,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":136,"enrollmentInfo":137,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":138,"briefSummary":139,"conditions":140,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":29,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":142,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":143,"startDateStruct":144,"completionDateStruct":146,"leadSponsor":148,"locationsCount":41},"100556452","mcaf-and-emd-with-and-without-ctg-wall-technique-for-the-treatment-of-class-iii-and-iv-gingival-recessions-a-randomized-control-trial-100556452","NCT06525285","MCAF and EMD With and Without CTG Wall Technique for the Treatment of Class III and IV Gingival recessions-a Randomized Control Trial","Modified Coronally Advanced Flap and Enamel Matrix Derivative With and Without Connective Tissue Graft Wall Technique for the Treatment of Class III and IV Gingival recessions-a Randomized Control Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participants aged 18-60 years\n* Systemically healthy individuals\n* Participants with Miller's Class III and IV or Cairo's RT3 gingival recession in maxillary and mandibular anteriors.\n* Participants with Nordland and Tarnow's papillary recession of either I, II or III.\n* Presence of interdental PPD, CAL and recession\n* Radiographic evidence of interdental bone loss\n* No prior experience of root coverage procedures\n* Able to achieve good oral hygiene and control gingivitis in the whole of the dentition (FMPS \\\u003C 25% and FMBS \\\u003C 25%).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Grade III mobile teeth\n* Pathologically migrated teeth\n* Endodontically treated teeth\n* Open contacts\n* Pregnancy and lactating women\n* Participants with systemic conditions\n* Untreated periodontitis\n* Persistence of uncorrected gingival trauma from tooth brushing\n* Self-reported current smoking\n* Presence of medical contraindications to elective surgery","60 Years",{"count":119,"type":22},[54],"Research is to compare and evaluate the clinical outcomes of the Connective tissue graft wall technique with modified coronally advanced flap to improve root coverage and clinical attachment levels in Miller's class III and IV gingival recession.",[141],"Gingival Recession","2024-07-24",{"date":125,"type":33},{"date":145,"type":22},"2024-07-19",{"date":147,"type":22},"2025-04-30",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":150,"slug":151,"hasResults":11,"nctId":152,"briefTitle":153,"officialTitle":154,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":155,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":156,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":157,"briefSummary":158,"conditions":159,"keywords":161,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":142,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":163,"startDateStruct":165,"completionDateStruct":167,"leadSponsor":168,"locationsCount":41},"100556072","comparative-evaluation-of-the-clinical-efficacy-of-short-implants-with-standard-length-implants---a-randomised-controlled-trial-100556072","NCT06520332","Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Short Implants With Standard-Length Implants - a Randomised Controlled Trial","Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Short Implants With Standard-Length Implants Placed in Native\u002FAugmented Bone of the Patients With a History of Periodontitis - A Randomised Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age group - 18 years and above\n2. Presence of \\>2 mm keratinised tissue to allow flap management.\n3. Systemically healthy patients\n4. The residual vertical bone height at the implant sites ranging from 6 to 9 mm for short implant placement ; \\> 9 mm for standard implant placement.\n5. History of periodontitis\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Medical conditions contraindicating surgical interventions\n\n   1. Uncontrolled diabetes\n   2. Hemorrhagic disorders\n2. Intravenous and oral bisphosphonate therapy.\n3. Irradiation in head and neck\n4. Pregnant and lactating women\n5. Subjects with known bone metabolic disorders (paget's disease , fibrous dysplasia etc.)\n6. Known smokers and alcoholics",{"count":52,"type":22},[54],"Periodontal disease , especially in its advanced stages , is one of the main cause for tooth loss .Tooth replacement options include dental implants , fixed partial denture , removable partial denture and complete dentures . Dental implants have become more common treatment for replacing missing teeth and aim to improve chewing efficiency, physical health and esthetic. Although conventional implants cannot be placed in every site due to resorption of the alveolar socket after extraction. Thus short implants can be used as an alternative . Hence, this study aims at comparing the clinical efficacy of short implants with standard length implants placed in native or augmented bone in patients with a history of periodontitis.",[160],"Dental Implant",[162],"Dental implant",{"date":164,"type":33},"2024-07-25",{"date":166,"type":22},"2024-08",{"date":67,"type":22},{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":170,"slug":171,"hasResults":11,"nctId":172,"briefTitle":173,"officialTitle":174,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":175,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":50,"enrollmentInfo":176,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":177,"briefSummary":178,"conditions":179,"keywords":180,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":142,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":183,"startDateStruct":184,"completionDateStruct":185,"leadSponsor":187,"locationsCount":41},"100556455","comparision-of-clinical-efficacy-of-immediate-implants-with-t-prf-and-bone-graft-versus-prf-and-bone-graft-100556455","NCT06525324","Comparision of Clinical Efficacy of Immediate Implants With T-PRF and Bone-graft Versus PRF and Bone-graft","Comparing The Effectiveness Of T-PRF And PRF With Bone-Graft[DMBM]TM Around Immediate Implants - A RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients between 18-55 years of age.\n2. Presence of non-restorable teeth (maxillary or mandibular) due to trauma, decayed, mobility, root resorption, root stumps, root fracture, over retained deciduous tooth, endodontic or periodontal failure in whom immediate implants can be placed.\n3. Good oral hygiene.\n4. Good patient compliance.\n5. Class I extraction socket defects according to modified Elian et al 2021.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Systemic complications (uncontrolled diabetes and severe cardiovascular or infectious diseases).\n2. Intravenous and oral bisphosphonate therapy.\n3. Patients who are psychologically unable to participate.\n4. Pregnant and lactating participants with bone diseases\n5. Patients on chemotherapy or radiotherapy\n6. Alcohol or drug abuse.",{"count":52,"type":22},[54],"The normal architecture of the alveolar process is altered by periodontitis, which also causes the loss of alveolar bone surrounding the teeth. Untreated periodontitis may cause teeth to become mobile and leads to loss of teeth.\n\nIn such cases, one of the treatment modalities is extraction of the tooth and placement of immediate implant which reduces the waiting period. And due to the resorption of alveolar ridge the bone graft will be used along with T-PRF and PRF.\n\nSo this study aims at the placement of immediate implants along with T-PRF with bone graft and PRF with bone graft.",[83],[181,182],"PRF with bone graft","T-PRF with bone graft",{"date":125,"type":33},{"date":166,"type":22},{"date":186,"type":22},"2025-10",{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":189,"slug":190,"hasResults":11,"nctId":191,"briefTitle":192,"officialTitle":193,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":194,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":195,"enrollmentInfo":196,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":197,"briefSummary":198,"conditions":199,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":145,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":201,"startDateStruct":202,"completionDateStruct":203,"leadSponsor":204,"locationsCount":4},"100555999","comparison-of-implant-position-achieved-with-fully-guided-versus-partially-guided-implant-placement-100555999","NCT06519383","Comparison Of Implant Position Achieved With Fully Guided Versus Partially Guided Implant Placement","Comparative Evaluation Of Accuracy Of Implant Position Achieved With Static Computer Assisted Fully Guided Implant Placement (sCAIP) And Conventional Cast Based Partially Guided Implant Placement (cPGIP)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients in need of replacement of missing teeth.\n* Mouth opening at least 30 mm.\n* Age\\>18 years.\n* Limited vertical or horizontal dimension of the alveolar ridge.\n* Unfavorable bone morphology necessitating correct implant position.\n* When minimally invasive (e.g. flapless) surgery is intended.\n* When immediate implant restoration is planned.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes per day)\n* Uncontrolled diabetes\n* Metabolic bone disorders\n* History of radiotherapy of the head and neck\n* Recent chemotherapy\n* Use of drugs influencing bone or soft tissue healing (e.g., high doses of antiresorptive medication, steroids or anti-inflammatory drugs)\n* Pregnant and\u002For lactating women","80 Years",{"count":52,"type":22},[54],"Globally implant therapy is currently accepted as a predictable, viable and successful option to replace missing teeth. Ample studies have shown excellent survival and clinical success rates of dental implants for various indications.The correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of an implant is considered a prerequisite for an optimal outcome.Computer assisted implant surgery maybe beneficial in patients with limited bone and proximity to anatomic structures.Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial is to investigate the accuracy of implant position achieved with static CAIP(Computer Assisted Implant Placement) and to compare this with the accuracy of conventional cast based partially guided implant placement(cPGIP).",[200],"Implant Placement",{"date":164,"type":33},{"date":108,"type":22},{"date":67,"type":22},{"name":39,"class":40},{"id":206,"slug":207,"hasResults":11,"nctId":208,"briefTitle":209,"officialTitle":210,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":211,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":49,"maxAge":212,"enrollmentInfo":213,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":214,"briefSummary":215,"conditions":216,"keywords":217,"overallStatus":60,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":145,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":218,"startDateStruct":219,"completionDateStruct":220,"leadSponsor":221,"locationsCount":4},"100555971","evaluation-of-soft-and-hard-tissue-healing-and-implant-stability-of-hydrophilic-versus-conventional-titanium-dental-implants-100555971","NCT06519019","Evaluation of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing and Implant Stability Of Hydrophilic Versus Conventional Titanium Dental Implants.","Comparative Evaluation of Soft and Hard Tissue Healing and Implant Stability Of Hydrophilic Versus Conventional Titanium Dental Implants - A Randomized Clinical Trial.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. At least above 18 years of age.\n2. Patients who needs replacement of two or more teeth in mandible.\n3. Adequate bone volume to accommodate planned dental implants.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. General contraindication to dental implant treatment. (Uncontrolled diabetes and severe cardiovascular or infectious diseases).\n2. Intravenous and oral bisphosphonate therapy.\n3. Presence of severe, moderate or mild untreated periodontal disease.\n4. Unwillingness to return for the follow-up examination.\n5. Smokers.\n6. Patients who are psychologically unable to participate.\n7. Poor oral hygiene.","75 Years",{"count":5,"type":22},[54],"Dental implants have become more common treatment for replacing missing teeth and aim to improve chewing efficiency, physical health and esthetic. Researchers always tried to improve design, mechanical and chemical properties of implant. Major benefit of surface modification are to improve hydrophilicity, cell to implant adhesion and cell proliferation. These modification improve osseointegration and reduce treatment duration. In this study investigators are evaluating healing capacity of hydrophilic implant compared to conventional implant.",[83],[83],{"date":164,"type":33},{"date":108,"type":22},{"date":67,"type":22},{"name":39,"class":40},""]