[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Menoufia University\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":584},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":7,"results":8},null,31,0,25,[9,50,74,106,130,150,171,195,218,242,261,281,306,335,355,381,404,422,439,458,477,495,514,536,560],{"id":10,"slug":11,"hasResults":12,"nctId":13,"briefTitle":14,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":31,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":39,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":40,"startDateStruct":43,"completionDateStruct":45,"leadSponsor":47,"locationsCount":4},"100644517","phase-4-comparative-evaluation-of-diaphragmatic-function-following-interscalene-anterior-suprascapular-and-costoclavicular-nerve-blocks-in-shoulder-surgery-100644517",false,"NCT07671352","Comparative Evaluation of Diaphragmatic Function Following Interscalene, Anterior Suprascapular, and Costoclavicular Nerve Blocks in Shoulder Surgery","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAdults of both sexes, aged 18 to 70 years American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II Scheduled for elective shoulder surgery\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPulmonary disease or baseline diaphragmatic dysfunction Refusal to provide informed consent Pre-existing neuropathy in the operated limb Allergy to local anesthetics Infection at the injection site Coagulopathy Pregnancy","ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},75,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"PHASE4","Shoulder surgery causes significant postoperative pain, and ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia is central to its management. The interscalene block (ISB) is the gold standard but frequently causes phrenic nerve paralysis and hemi-diaphragmatic paresis, limiting its use in patients with reduced pulmonary reserve. The suprascapular (SSNB) and costoclavicular (CCB) blocks are proposed diaphragm-sparing alternatives, but data directly comparing all three are limited.\n\nThis randomised, double-blinded trial will compare the incidence of hemi-diaphragmatic paresis among ultrasound-guided ISB, SSNB, and CCB in elective shoulder surgery. Seventy-five ASA I-II patients aged 18-70 will be allocated 1:1:1 to one block. The primary outcome is the incidence of hemi-diaphragmatic paresis, measured by ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion before induction and after recovery in the PACU. Secondary outcomes include postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and patient satisfaction. The investigators hypothesise that SSNB and CCB will cause less hemidiaphragmatic paresis than ISB while providing comparable analgesia.",[27,28,29,30],"Hemidiaphragmatic Paralysis","Postoperative Pain","Shoulder Surgery","Brachial Plexus Block",[32,33,34,35,36,37],"Interscalene block","Suprascapular nerve block","Costoclavicular block","Diaphragmatic excursion","Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia","Phrenic nerve palsy","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-22",{"date":41,"type":42},"2026-06-26","ACTUAL",{"date":44,"type":21},"2026-06-25",{"date":46,"type":21},"2027-01-01",{"name":48,"class":49},"Menoufia University","OTHER",{"id":51,"slug":52,"hasResults":12,"nctId":53,"briefTitle":54,"officialTitle":55,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":56,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":57,"enrollmentInfo":58,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":61,"conditions":62,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":65,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":66,"startDateStruct":68,"completionDateStruct":70,"leadSponsor":72,"locationsCount":73},"100642732","accuracy-of-complete-arch-implant-photogrammetry-100642732","NCT07643441","Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Photogrammetry","Accuracy of Complete-arch Implant Scans Obtained Using Intraoral Photogrammetry and a Mobile-phone Based Photogrammetry.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 years or older.\n* Completely edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported complete-arch prostheses.\n* Presence of at least four osseointegrated implants in the edentulous arch.\n* Patients able to undergo digital implant scanning procedures.\n* Patients willing to participate and provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with unstable or failed implants.\n* Presence of peri-implant disease, active oral infection, or significant soft-tissue inflammation around the implants.\n* Inadequate access for placement of photogrammetry scan bodies or markers.\n* Patients with conditions that prevent proper scanning procedures (e.g., inability to maintain mouth opening or remain still during data acquisition).\n* Patients requiring immediate implant placement or immediate loading protocols.\n* Patients unwilling or unable to provide informed consent.\n* Incomplete clinical records or inability to complete all study procedures.","50 Years",{"count":59,"type":21},42,"OBSERVATIONAL","This prospective comparative clinical study evaluated the accuracy and chairside time of complete-arch implant scans obtained using an intraoral photogrammetry system and a mobile-phone-based photogrammetry system in edentulous patients rehabilitated with complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. Implant positions recorded by each system were compared with a reference dataset to assess linear and angular discrepancies. The chairside time required for data acquisition was also measured. The study aimed to determine whether mobile-phone-based photogrammetry can provide clinically acceptable accuracy comparable to that of intraoral photogrammetry while improving clinical efficiency. The findings may help clinicians select appropriate digital impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.",[63],"Edentulous Jaw","RECRUITING","2026-06-07",{"date":67,"type":42},"2026-06-11",{"date":69,"type":42},"2026-01-01",{"date":71,"type":21},"2026-08-01",{"name":48,"class":49},1,{"id":75,"slug":76,"hasResults":12,"nctId":77,"briefTitle":78,"officialTitle":79,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":80,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":81,"minAge":17,"maxAge":82,"enrollmentInfo":83,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":85,"briefSummary":87,"conditions":88,"keywords":94,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":98,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":99,"startDateStruct":101,"completionDateStruct":103,"leadSponsor":105,"locationsCount":73},"100630272","deep-versus-moderate-neuromuscular-blocking-100630272","NCT07485517","Deep Versus Moderate Neuromuscular Blocking","The Effect of Deep Versus Moderate Neuromuscular Blocking on Patients Undergoing Open Hysterectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Women who will be admitted to undergo elective hysterectomy\n\n  ,-ASA grade I or II,\n* Body mass index (BMI) of \\\u003C35 kg\u002Fm2\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nhemoglobin concentration of ≤7 gm%,\n\n* the presence of neuromuscular disorders\n* uncontrolled medical diseases\n* autoimmune diseases, maintenance on immunosuppressant therapy for any indication\n* refusal to sign the written consent","FEMALE","60 Years",{"count":84,"type":21},88,[86],"NA","This study aimed for Determination of the impacts of deep neuromuscular blockade (DNMB) on surgical outcomes, consumption of perioperative opioid analgesia, and serum levels of inflammatory cytokines in comparison to moderate NMB (MNMB).",[89,90,91,92,93],"Change in Serum Levels of the Estimated Inflammatory Cytokines","Total Dose of IO Fentanyl","PO Morphine","Surgeons' Rating","Pain Scores",[95,96,97],"Neuromuscular Blocking","Hysterectomy","cytokines","2026-05-29",{"date":100,"type":42},"2026-06-02",{"date":102,"type":21},"2026-06-01",{"date":104,"type":21},"2026-12-30",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":107,"slug":108,"hasResults":12,"nctId":109,"briefTitle":110,"officialTitle":111,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":112,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":81,"minAge":17,"maxAge":113,"enrollmentInfo":114,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":116,"briefSummary":117,"conditions":118,"keywords":120,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":98,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":124,"startDateStruct":125,"completionDateStruct":127,"leadSponsor":129,"locationsCount":73},"100631850","dexmedetomidine-as-an-adjuvant-during-dural-puncture-epidural-100631850","NCT07506044","Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant During Dural Puncture Epidural","The Effect of Different Doses of Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Bupivacaine for Parturients Having Dural Puncture Epidural Technique to Elaborate Labor Pain","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Women who attend the Emergency Department in labor, with cervical dilation of 3-5 cm,\n* normally presented singleton fetus, intact fetal membranes, and who are free of exclusion criteria\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nAbnormal fetal presentation or lie, 'premature rupture of membranes, maternal fever, fetal distress, pregnancy-induced diseases\n\n* abnormal placental position,\n* ASA grade\\>II\n* marked obesity,\n* allergy or contraindications to the used drugs,\n* spinal deformity or disorders 'cutaneous diseases or infection at the injection site","40 Years",{"count":115,"type":21},140,[86],"The study aimed to determine the effects of using varied doses of DEX on the concentration of bupivacaine injected for epidural labor analgesia, and to assess the benefits of the dural puncture epidural.",[119],"Total Dose of Bupivacaine Administered During Labor",[121,122,123],"Labour","Epidural","Dexmedetomidine",{"date":100,"type":42},{"date":126,"type":21},"2026-05-30",{"date":128,"type":21},"2026-10-30",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":131,"slug":132,"hasResults":12,"nctId":133,"briefTitle":134,"officialTitle":135,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":136,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":82,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":137,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":139,"conditions":140,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":142,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":143,"startDateStruct":145,"completionDateStruct":147,"leadSponsor":149,"locationsCount":73},"100634040","digitally-assisted-immediate-implants-in-geriatric-patients-100634040","NCT07534514","Digitally Assisted Immediate Implants in Geriatric Patients","Digitally Assisted Immediate Implant Placement and Loading in Geriatric Patients","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged ≥65 years\n* Indication for tooth extraction with immediate implant placement\n* Sufficient residual bone volume to achieve primary implant stability\n* Ability to achieve insertion torque ≥35 Ncm and\u002For implant stability quotient (ISQ) ≥60\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III\n* Adequate oral hygiene and patient compliance\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Uncontrolled systemic diseases (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes mellitus)\n* History of head and neck radiotherapy\n* Active untreated periodontal disease\n* Heavy smoking (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday)\n* Current or previous bisphosphonate therapy\n* Parafunctional habits (e.g., severe bruxism)",{"count":138,"type":21},40,"This prospective clinical study aims to evaluate the clinical performance of digitally assisted immediate implant placement and immediate loading in geriatric patients. The study will assess biological outcomes, including implant survival and marginal bone level changes, as well as mechanical complications and primary stability progression. Additionally, patient-reported outcomes such as pain, functional improvement, and esthetic satisfaction will be evaluated using visual analog scales. A fully digital workflow incorporating CBCT, intraoral scanning, and guided surgery will be utilized to enhance treatment accuracy and efficiency. Patients will be followed for 12 months to determine the predictability and effectiveness of this treatment approach in the elderly population.",[141],"Tooth Loss","2026-04-09",{"date":144,"type":42},"2026-04-16",{"date":146,"type":42},"2025-01-01",{"date":148,"type":21},"2026-10-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":151,"slug":152,"hasResults":12,"nctId":153,"briefTitle":154,"officialTitle":155,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":156,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":82,"enrollmentInfo":157,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":159,"briefSummary":160,"conditions":161,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":163,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":164,"startDateStruct":166,"completionDateStruct":168,"leadSponsor":170,"locationsCount":73},"100633129","clinical-performance-of-3d-printed-resin-and-zirconia-implant-restorations-100633129","NCT07522671","Clinical Performance of 3D-Printed Resin and Zirconia Implant Restorations","Clinical Performance of 3D-Printed Resin Versus Milled Monolithic Zirconia in Implant-Supported Single Crowns and Short-Span Fixed Partial Dentures: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participants must meet all of the following:\n* Age ≥18 years.\n* Have one or two osseointegrated dental implants requiring prosthetic restoration.\n* Demonstrate stable peri-implant tissues with no signs of inflammation or implant mobility.\n* Maintain good oral hygiene and controlled periodontal status.\n* Require either:\n* A single implant-supported crown, or\n* A short-span (maximum 3-unit) implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) supported by two implants in the mandibular anterior region.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Participants are excluded if they have any of the following:\n* Severe parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism).\n* Uncontrolled systemic diseases affecting bone metabolism or healing.\n* Peri-implantitis or compromised implant stability.\n* Requirement for cantilever prostheses or long-span restorations, or FPDs in areas other than the mandibular anterior region.",{"count":158,"type":21},60,[86],"This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluates the clinical performance of 3D-printed resin restorations compared with milled monolithic zirconia in implant-supported single crowns and short-span fixed partial dentures (FPDs). A total of patients requiring one or two implant-supported restorations in the mandibular anterior region were randomly allocated to receive either 3D-printed permanent resin restorations (CROWNTEC) or conventionally milled zirconia prostheses.\n\nAll restorations were fabricated using a standardized digital workflow and assessed over a 12-month follow-up period. The primary outcome was restoration survival rate, while secondary outcomes included technical complications, peri-implant biological parameters, marginal bone level changes, and patient-reported satisfaction.\n\nThis study aims to provide clinical evidence regarding the viability of 3D-printed definitive resin materials as an alternative to zirconia in implant prosthodontics.",[162],"Prosthesis User","2026-04-08",{"date":165,"type":42},"2026-04-13",{"date":167,"type":21},"2026-04-01",{"date":169,"type":21},"2028-11-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":172,"slug":173,"hasResults":12,"nctId":174,"briefTitle":175,"officialTitle":176,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":177,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":178,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":180,"conditions":181,"keywords":183,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":188,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":189,"startDateStruct":191,"completionDateStruct":192,"leadSponsor":194,"locationsCount":73},"100632634","dynamic-svo2-in-predicting-fluid-responsiveness-in-septic-shock-100632634","NCT07516236","Dynamic SvO2 in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Septic Shock","Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Central Venous Oxygen Saturation in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Septic Shock: A Prospective Observational Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\> 18 years\n* Diagnosis of septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria:\n\nSuspected or confirmed infection o Requirement for vasopressors to maintain MAP \\> 65 mmHg o Serum lactate \\> 2 mmol\u002FL despite adequate fluid resuscitation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy\n* Significant valvular heart disease.\n* Atrial fibrillation.\n* Inadequate echocardiographic window.\n* Ongoing bleeding or contraindication to fluid bolus.",{"count":179,"type":21},115,"This prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study investigates the efficacy of dynamic central venous oxygen saturation in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic shock, compared to measurements obtained using echocardiography (VTI) and cardiometry. We will correlate the changes in measuring cardiac output by both echocardiography and cardiometry with the changes in dynamic central venous oxygen saturation both at baseline and after fluid challenge to investigate the efficacy of dynamic central venous oxygen saturation in predicting fluid responsiveness in septic shock.",[182],"Sepsis and Septic Shock",[184,185,186,187],"Diagnostic Accuracy","Dynamic Venous Oxygen Saturation","Fluid Responsiveness","Septic Shock","2026-04-02",{"date":190,"type":42},"2026-04-07",{"date":167,"type":21},{"date":193,"type":21},"2027-02-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":196,"slug":197,"hasResults":12,"nctId":198,"briefTitle":199,"officialTitle":199,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":200,"healthyVolunteers":201,"sex":16,"minAge":202,"maxAge":82,"enrollmentInfo":203,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":204,"briefSummary":205,"conditions":206,"keywords":208,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":210,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":211,"startDateStruct":213,"completionDateStruct":215,"leadSponsor":217,"locationsCount":73},"100632181","perioperative-analgesic-effect-of-different-volumes-of-modified-thoracoabdominal-perichondrial-approach-on-patients-undergoing-sleeve-gastrectomy-prospective-randomized-trial-100632181","NCT07510347","Perioperative Analgesic Effect of Different Volumes of Modified Thoracoabdominal Perichondrial Approach on Patients Undergoing Sleeve Gastrectomy: Prospective Randomized Trial","Inclusion Criteria\n\nPatients will be eligible for the study if they meet the following criteria:\n\n1. Adults aged \\> 20 years to 60 years.\n2. Scheduled for elective laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Exclusion Criteria\n\nPatients will be excluded from the study if any of the following conditions apply:\n\n1. American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) ASA \\> class 2.\n2. History of chronic pain or opioid use for more than 3 months before surgery.\n3. Previous major abdominal surgery (which may affect M-TAPA efficacy).\n4. Known hypersensitivity or allergy to local anesthetics (e.g., bupivacaine).\n5. Coagulopathy or ongoing anticoagulant therapy that could increase bleeding risk.\n6. Local infection at the injection site.\n7. Neuromuscular disorders affecting pain perception.\n8. Patient with mental or psychiatric disorders.",true,"20 Years",{"count":158,"type":21},[86],"Sleeve gastrectomy is a leading technique in metabolic \\& bariatric surgery. It gained ever-increasing popularity among laparoscopic bariatric surgeries and has proved to be a successful method in achieving considerable weight loss in a short time .\n\nPostoperative pain management can be obtained by opioids, opioid free analgesics and\u002For regional blocks. Regional techniques, like Transverse abdominis plane block (TAP) blocks or Modified Thoracoabdominal Nerve Block through perichondrial approach (M-TAPA), offer targeted pain relief, reduce the need for opioids, and promote faster recovery. Compared to systemic opioids, regional blocks are more effective in managing postoperative pain while minimizing complications and enhancing recovery after surgery .\n\nM-TAPA was developed by Tulgar et al. as a targeted method for managing postoperative pain in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries. This innovative technique utilizes a perichondrial approach, where a local anesthetic is administered to the lower surface of the chondrium .\n\nThis method is particularly beneficial because it allows the anesthetic to spread widely, effectively covering multiple dermatomal levels, specifically T5 and T11-12. The diffusion of the local anesthetic across the linea semilunaris contributes to a broader analgesic effect, which is crucial for comprehensive pain management in this surgical context .\n\nThe feasibility of doing the block in a supine position is making it a practical option for both patients and surgeons during procedures. This accessibility can streamline the surgical workflow and enhance patient comfort . Moreover, it plays a great role in Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) protocols .\n\nTwenty, 25, and 30-mL volumes of 0.25% bupivacaine per side were used in case reports and single-group studies . However, so far no available studies compared different volumes of M-TAPA block abdominal surgeries.\n\nThe aim of this study is to assess the perioperative analgesic efficacy of different volumes of Modified Thoracoabdominal Perichondrial Approach (M-TAPA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to determine the optimal volume for effective pain control and reduced opioid use.",[207],"Time",[209],"Perioperative Analgesic Effect of Different Volumes of Modified Thoracoabdominal Perichondrial Approach on Patients Undergoing Sleeve Gastrectomy","2026-03-30",{"date":212,"type":42},"2026-04-03",{"date":214,"type":42},"2025-05-18",{"date":216,"type":21},"2026-05-18",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":219,"slug":220,"hasResults":12,"nctId":221,"briefTitle":222,"officialTitle":222,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":223,"healthyVolunteers":201,"sex":16,"minAge":224,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":225,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":226,"briefSummary":227,"conditions":228,"keywords":231,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":234,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":235,"startDateStruct":237,"completionDateStruct":239,"leadSponsor":241,"locationsCount":73},"100628396","laparoscopic-versus-open-nephrectomy--clinical-effectivness-and-cost-analysis-100628396","NCT07461090","Laparoscopic Versus Open Nephrectomy : Clinical Effectivness and Cost Analysis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* American Society of Anesthesiology score 1-3.\n* Indication for :\n\n  * Simple total nephrectomy or hemi nephrectomy: benign chronic inflammatory non-functioning kidney\n  * Partial nephrectomy: localized renal mass ≤7 cm suitable for nephron-sparing surgery.\n  * Radical nephrectomy or Radical nephrouretrectomy with bladder cuff: localized renal tumor requiring complete nephrectomy without major vascular invasion.\n* Patient deemed fit for general anesthesia and surgery.\n* Patient provides written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* emergency surgery, dialysis-dependent patients, planned hybrid procedures.\n* Patients with incomplete data\n* Patients with metastatic disease at presentation.\n* Prior extensive ipsilateral retroperitoneal surgery or severe adhesions precluding Laparoscopy.\n* Need for concomitant major procedures (eg, large bowel resection) at index operation.\n* Locally advanced tumor with obvious major vascular involvement requiring complex vascular reconstruction.\n* Uncorrected coagulopathy.\n* Pregnancy or Obese patient (BMI \\> 40)\n* Inability to provide informed consent or comply with follow-up.","1 Year",{"count":158,"type":21},[86],"To evaluate and compare clinical effectiveness (operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications and etc) and cost analysis' between laparoscopic nephrectomy and open nephrectomy .",[229,230],"Nonfunctioning Kidney","Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC)",[232,233],"Clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic nephrectomy","Cost analysis of laparoscopic nephrectomy","2026-03-09",{"date":236,"type":42},"2026-03-11",{"date":238,"type":21},"2026-02",{"date":240,"type":21},"2027-02",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":243,"slug":244,"hasResults":12,"nctId":245,"briefTitle":246,"officialTitle":247,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":248,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":249,"enrollmentInfo":250,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":251,"conditions":252,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":253,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":254,"startDateStruct":256,"completionDateStruct":258,"leadSponsor":260,"locationsCount":73},"100624579","comparison-between-using-cardiometry-and-ivc-collapsibility-100624579","NCT07411469","Comparison Between Using Cardiometry and IVC Collapsibility","Comparison Between Using Cardiometry and IVC Collapsibility in Predicting Fluid Responsiveness in Hypovolemic Sepsis Patients","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients Diagnosed with Hypotensive Sepsis: Patients must meet the clinical criteria for sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 definitions, including evidence of infection and hypotension despite adequate fluid resuscitation. Hypotension is defined as systolic blood pressure \\\u003C90 mmHg or mean arterial pressure (MAP) \\\u003C65 mmHg.\n* BMI ≥18.5 and ≤40 kg\u002Fm²: Patients will be included regardless of BMI, as long as it falls within the normal to overweight\u002Fobese range. Extremes of BMI (e.g., \\\u003C18.5 or \\>40) may be excluded due to the potential influence on peripheral perfusion measurements.\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification as:\n\nASA Score I-III: Patients with an ASA physical status score of I (healthy patients), II (mild systemic disease), or III (severe systemic disease) will be included. Patients with ASA IV or V (those with severe systemic disease that is a constant threat to life) will be excluded due to potential confounding factors.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n\\- Cardiac Conditions: Significant valvular heart diseases, such as severe mitral or aortic regurgitation, which can affect hemodynamic assessments.\n\nPresence of major cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation or frequent ectopic beats, as these can interfere with accurate measurement of fluid responsiveness.\n\n\\- Renal Considerations: Patients undergoing renal replacement therapy or those with end-stage renal disease, as fluid balance and responsiveness may be altered.\n\n* Pregnancy Hemodynamic changes during pregnancy (e.g., increased cardiac output and altered vascular resistance) differ significantly from septic shock.\n* Patients with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg\u002Fm² Obesity can affect the accuracy of non-invasive monitoring techniques with poor window.","65 Years",{"count":158,"type":21},"Sepsis is a life-threatening condition caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, leading to organ dysfunction. Septic shock, a severe form of sepsis, is characterized by persistent hypotension and cellular\u002Fmetabolic abnormalities despite adequate fluid resuscitation. It is associated with high mortality rates globally, necessitating timely diagnosis and treatment. Fluid resuscitation and vasopressor use are cornerstones of management, but they must be tailored to the individual to prevent complications such as fluid overload.",[187],"2026-02-08",{"date":255,"type":42},"2026-02-13",{"date":257,"type":42},"2025-05-10",{"date":259,"type":21},"2026-05-20",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":262,"slug":263,"hasResults":12,"nctId":264,"briefTitle":265,"officialTitle":266,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":267,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":113,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":269,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":270,"conditions":271,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":273,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":274,"startDateStruct":276,"completionDateStruct":278,"leadSponsor":280,"locationsCount":73},"100620130","all-on-x-stackable-guides-for-maxillary-terminal-dentition-100620130","NCT07353619","All-on-X Stackable Guides for Maxillary Terminal Dentition","All-on-X (Full-arch Implant-supported Rehabilitation) Stackable Surgical Guides for Maxillary Terminal Dentition: a 2-year Retrospective Analysis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAdult patients presenting with terminal dentition of the maxillary arch\n\nRehabilitation with a maxillary All-on-6 implant-supported complete fixed dental prosthesis\n\nTreatment performed using a fully digital stackable guided surgery workflow\n\nImmediate loading with a provisional fixed prosthesis\n\nAvailability of complete clinical and radiographic records\n\nMinimum follow-up period of 2 years\n\nProsthetic design classified as (Fixed prosthesis) FP-1 or FP-2 according to Misch classification\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nUncontrolled systemic conditions contraindicating implant surgery\n\nHistory of head and neck radiotherapy\n\nPresence of untreated periodontal or peri-implant infection at the time of surgery\n\nIncomplete or missing clinical or radiographic records\n\nCases requiring simultaneous bone grafting procedures\n\nSevere maxillary atrophy (Cawood and Howell Class III-V)\n\nCases requiring FP-3 prosthetic design\n\nRehabilitation performed without guided surgery or without immediate loading","70 Years",{"count":138,"type":21},"This retrospective study will evaluate the clinical performance of maxillary All-on-X(full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation) implant rehabilitation using stackable guided surgery and immediate loading. Implant survival and peri-implant outcomes will be assessed over a 2-year follow-up, with regression analysis will be used to investigate the influence of surgical and prosthetic variables, including basal seating guide design.",[272],"Bone Loss","2026-01-18",{"date":275,"type":42},"2026-01-20",{"date":277,"type":42},"2024-01-01",{"date":279,"type":21},"2026-05-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":282,"slug":283,"hasResults":12,"nctId":284,"briefTitle":285,"officialTitle":286,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":287,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":288,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":290,"briefSummary":291,"conditions":292,"keywords":294,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":299,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":300,"startDateStruct":302,"completionDateStruct":303,"leadSponsor":305,"locationsCount":73},"100617734","efficacy-and-safety-of-flexible-ureteroscopy-versus-percutaneous-nephrolithotomy-in-management-of-staghorn-stones-100617734","NCT07322471","Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Management of Staghorn Stones","Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Management of Staghorn Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged ≥18 years.\n* Diagnosis of complete staghorn renal stones confirmed by non-contrast CT.\n* Negative urine culture.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Congenital renal anomalies (e.g., horseshoe kidney, malrotation).\n* Coagulopathy or uncorrected bleeding disorder.\n* Pregnancy.\n* Previous ipsilateral renal surgery.",{"count":289,"type":21},138,[86],"Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered the treatment of choice for management of large renal calculi larger than 2 cm based on the yearly updated European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. However, PCNL is a challenging procedure which may be associated with several complications ranging from mild complications, such as urinary extravasation, leakage, infection and bleeding requiring transfusion to sever complications, such as sepsis, injury to surrounding organs, persistent hematuria and renal function impairment. The overall complication rate varies based on patient factors and surgical expertise.\n\nNot only serious complications that defer some endourologists from performing PCNL but also such procedure is contraindicated and avoided by surgeons in cases of retrorenal colon, morbidly obese patients, spinal abnormalities and bleeding diathesis. Therefore, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) or flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) is increasingly recognized as an effective alternative, particularly for patients seeking a minimally invasive approach with a lower risk of complications.\n\nThe best practice in dealing with renal stones using FURS can be achieved via preoperative stenting for 2-4 weeks, negative urine culture, ureteral access sheath (UAS) usage and optimizing laser settings. Compared to PCNL, FURS is a less challenging procedure with low learning curve, less invasive and less bleeding. However, the high cost, including laser usage cost, presenting costs and multisession costs, in addition to the high risk of postoperative infection are considered as major drawbacks of FURS.\n\nRIRS is emerging as an effective, safe, minimally invasive alternative to PCNL. Yet, the success of RIRS in comparison to PCNL, especially in a single session, is still questionable and there is no consensus about it.",[293],"Renal Stones",[295,296,297,298],"PCNL","RIRS","staghorn stone","renal stone","2026-01-07",{"date":301,"type":42},"2026-01-09",{"date":69,"type":21},{"date":304,"type":21},"2026-07-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":307,"slug":308,"hasResults":12,"nctId":309,"briefTitle":310,"officialTitle":311,"acronym":312,"eligibilityCriteria":313,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":314,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":315,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":317,"briefSummary":318,"conditions":319,"keywords":321,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":69,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":327,"startDateStruct":329,"completionDateStruct":331,"leadSponsor":333,"locationsCount":334},"100616525","cognitive-and-fusion-prostatic-biopsy-100616525","NCT07306741","Cognitive and Fusion Prostatic Biopsy","Cognitive Versus Image Guided Fusion Transrectal Prostatic Biopsy for the Detection of Prostate Cancer","CTB-FTB","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nBiopsy-naïve patients\n\nProstate-specific antigen level between 4 and 20 ng\u002FmL\n\nMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score 4 or 5\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPrior prostate biopsy\n\nProstate-specific Antigen level outside the specified range\n\nContraindication to Magnetic Resonance Imaging","MALE",{"count":316,"type":21},80,[86],"The goal of this study is to compare two different prostate biopsy techniques used to detect prostate cancer. These techniques are cognitive-targeted biopsy (CTB) and magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-targeted transrectal biopsy (FTB). Both methods aim to improve the accuracy of prostate cancer detection by targeting suspicious areas identified on prostate imaging. This study will compare how accurately each technique detects prostate cancer, the pathological findings obtained from each biopsy method, and how operator performance may influence the procedure. The information gained from this study may help improve prostate cancer diagnosis and guide future biopsy practices.",[320],"Prostate Cancer",[322,323,324,325,326,184],"Cognitive-Targeted Biopsy","Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy","Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging","Transrectal Prostate Biopsy","Prostate Cancer Detection",{"date":328,"type":42},"2026-01-05",{"date":330,"type":42},"2025-12-28",{"date":332,"type":21},"2026-08-05",{"name":48,"class":49},2,{"id":336,"slug":337,"hasResults":12,"nctId":338,"briefTitle":339,"officialTitle":340,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":341,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":202,"maxAge":342,"enrollmentInfo":343,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":345,"conditions":346,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":348,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":349,"startDateStruct":351,"completionDateStruct":353,"leadSponsor":354,"locationsCount":73},"100617085","facially-driven-digital-full-mouth-rehabilitation-100617085","NCT07314034","\"Facially Driven Digital Full-Mouth Rehabilitation\"","Facially Driven Digital Workflow for Esthetic and Functional Full-mouth Rehabilitation","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 20-45 years with partial or complete edentulism requiring full-mouth rehabilitation.\n* Patients with bite dysfunction, malocclusion, or esthetic concerns suitable for digital workflow treatment.\n* Adequate bone volume for implant placement or candidates for TAD-assisted tooth movement.\n* Willingness to undergo treatment using a fully digital, facially guided workflow and comply with follow-up visits.\n* Ability to provide informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Systemic conditions contraindicating implant or surgical procedures (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, immunosuppression).\n* Active oral infections or untreated periodontal disease.\n* Heavy smokers (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday) or substance abuse.\n* History of head and neck radiation therapy or bisphosphonate use.\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding.\n* Inability to comply with treatment or follow-up protocol.","45 Years",{"count":344,"type":21},10,"Participants with bite difficulties, smile dissatisfaction, and missing mandibular molars was rehabilitated using a fully digital, facially driven workflow. Integration of intraoral, facial, and CBCT data guided esthetic design, occlusion, and implant planning, resulting in precise alignment, functional occlusion, and esthetic restoration with veneers, zirconia crowns, TAD-assisted molar intrusion, and guided implants.",[347],"Malocclusion","2025-12-30",{"date":350,"type":42},"2026-01-02",{"date":352,"type":42},"2024-06-01",{"date":104,"type":21},{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":356,"slug":357,"hasResults":12,"nctId":358,"briefTitle":359,"officialTitle":360,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":361,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":362,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":364,"briefSummary":365,"conditions":366,"keywords":368,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":375,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":376,"startDateStruct":378,"completionDateStruct":379,"leadSponsor":380,"locationsCount":73},"100616106","phase-4-microbiological-characteristics-of-biofilm-on-double-j-ureteral-stents-after-lithotripsy-100616106","NCT07301294","Microbiological Characteristics of Biofilm on Double J Ureteral Stents After Lithotripsy.","Microbiological Characteristics of Biofilm on Double J Ureteral Stents After Lithotripsy: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria\n\n* Adult patients (≥18 years).\n* Undergoing lithotripsy (FURS, URS or PCNL) with DJ stent insertion.\n* Stone free status.\n* Planned stent indwelling time of 1 month.\n* Negative preoperative urine culture.\n\nExclusion Criteria\n\n* Known allergy or contraindication to linezolid or the selected mucolytic agent.\n* Chronic kidney disease.\n* Immunocompromised patients (e.g., chemotherapy, long-term steroid use).\n* Pregnant or lactating women.",{"count":363,"type":21},100,[24],"Indwelling Double J (DJ) ureteral stents are commonly used following lithotripsy to ensure adequate urinary drainage and prevent obstruction. However, stent-related biofilm formation remains a significant clinical problem, contributing to infection, encrustation, patient discomfort, and stent failure. Biofilms consist of microbial communities embedded within an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), which protects microorganisms from host defenses and antimicrobial agents.\n\nAntibiotic therapy alone may be insufficient to eradicate established biofilms due to poor penetration into the EPS matrix. Linezolid is a potent antibiotic with activity against gram-positive organisms commonly implicated in urinary tract colonization and penetrate and effectively act against bacterial biofilms. Mucolytic agents, by disrupting the biofilm matrix, may enhance antimicrobial penetration and reduce biofilm burden.\n\nThe combination of an antibiotic with a mucolytic agent may therefore provide superior biofilm reduction compared to either approach alone or no treatment.",[367],"Double J Stent",[369,370,371,372,373,374],"DJ stent","Double J stent","ureteric stent","Biofilm","Mucolytic","Linezolid","2025-12-22",{"date":377,"type":42},"2025-12-24",{"date":69,"type":21},{"date":304,"type":21},{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":382,"slug":383,"hasResults":12,"nctId":384,"briefTitle":385,"officialTitle":386,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":387,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":388,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":390,"briefSummary":391,"conditions":392,"keywords":394,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":399,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":400,"startDateStruct":401,"completionDateStruct":402,"leadSponsor":403,"locationsCount":73},"100616850","comparison-of-lithotomy-versus-lateral-position-in-retrograde-intrarenal-surgery-for-lower-calyceal-stones-less-than-2-cm-100616850","NCT07310966","Comparison of Lithotomy Versus Lateral Position in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Calyceal Stones Less Than 2 cm","Comparison of Lithotomy Versus Lateral Position in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lower Calyceal Stones Less Than 2 cm: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged ≥18 years.\n* Single or multiple lower calyceal renal stones with stone size \\\u003C2 cm confirmed by NCCT.\n* Negative urine culture.\n* Presented cases.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Multiple stones involving renal pelvis or other calyces.\n* Anatomical anomalies affecting ureteroscope access (horseshoe kidney, malrotation, ureteral strictures).\n* Pregnancy.\n* Prior ipsilateral renal surgery.",{"count":389,"type":21},70,[86],"Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is an established minimally invasive treatment for renal stones, particularly for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm, offering acceptable stone-free rates with low morbidity.\n\nHowever, stone clearance in the lower calyx remains technically challenging due to unfavorable anatomy, limited scope deflection, and gravity-dependent fragment retention. Patient positioning during RIRS has been suggested as a modifiable factor that may influence endoscopic access, stone relocation, and surgical ergonomics.\n\nThe lithotomy position is conventionally used during RIRS, while the lateral position has been proposed to facilitate stone migration and improve lower calyceal access through gravitational assistance. Existing studies comparing patient positioning during RIRS are limited, with most evidence derived from retrospective analyses or non-randomized designs.\n\nTherefore, this randomized controlled trial aims to compare lithotomy versus lateral positioning during RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm in terms of operative and clinical outcomes.",[393],"Renal Calculi",[395,396,397,398,296],"lithotomy position","lateral position","lower calyx","FURS","2025-12-16",{"date":348,"type":42},{"date":69,"type":21},{"date":102,"type":21},{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":405,"slug":406,"hasResults":12,"nctId":407,"briefTitle":408,"officialTitle":409,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":410,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":113,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":411,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":412,"conditions":413,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":414,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":415,"startDateStruct":417,"completionDateStruct":419,"leadSponsor":421,"locationsCount":73},"100608083","prospective-outcomes-of-guided-equator-overdentures-100608083","NCT07196943","Prospective Outcomes of Guided Equator Overdentures","Outcomes of Implant-Supported Equator Overdentures Following Fully Guided Static Implant Surgery: A Prospective Study","* Inclusion Criteria:\n\n  * Completely edentulous mandible requiring implant-supported overdenture rehabilitation\n  * Adequate bone volume to accommodate four implants in a quadrilateral configuration, confirmed by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)\n  * Age between 40 and 75 years\n  * Good general health with no systemic contraindications to implant surgery\n  * Willingness and ability to provide informed consent\n  * Commitment to attend all scheduled follow-up visits over the 3-year study period\n* Exclusion Criteria:\n\n  * Uncontrolled systemic diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis)\n  * History of radiotherapy in the head and neck region\n  * Untreated oral infections or severe periodontal disease\n  * Poor oral hygiene or inability to comply with maintenance protocols\n  * Heavy smoking (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday) or alcohol abuse\n  * Known allergy or intolerance to materials or medications used in the study",{"count":138,"type":21},"This prospective clinical study evaluated the 3-year performance of mandibular implant-supported overdentures (IODs) placed using a fully guided static computer-assisted implant surgery (CAIS) protocol. Primary outcomes included implant survival, peri-implant soft tissue health, and marginal bone loss. Findings provide evidence for the predictability of digital surgical workflows in removable prosthodontics.",[272],"2025-09-20",{"date":416,"type":42},"2025-09-29",{"date":418,"type":42},"2025-09-01",{"date":420,"type":21},"2028-12-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":423,"slug":424,"hasResults":12,"nctId":425,"briefTitle":426,"officialTitle":427,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":428,"healthyVolunteers":201,"sex":16,"minAge":202,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":429,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":430,"briefSummary":431,"conditions":432,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":433,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":434,"startDateStruct":435,"completionDateStruct":437,"leadSponsor":438,"locationsCount":4},"100608028","crestal-bone-response-to-narrow-vs-regular-tie-base-in-subcrestal-implants-100608028","NCT07196228","Crestal Bone Response to Narrow vs. Regular Tie-Base in Subcrestal Implants","Evaluation of Crestal Bone Changes at Subcrestal Bone-level Implants With Narrow or Regular Tie-base: A Randomized Controlled Trial","\\*\\*Inclusion Criteria\n\nAdults ≥18 years old.\n\nSingle missing tooth in a posterior quadrant, bordered by adjacent natural teeth.\n\nAdequate bone volume to place implants 8.5-10 mm in length and 4 mm in diameter without the need for bone or soft tissue grafting.\n\nPresence of a natural tooth or an implant-supported fixed restoration as an antagonist.\n\nGood oral hygiene with a plaque index \\\u003C25%.\n\nWilling and able to comply with study procedures and follow-up schedule.\n\nProvided written informed consent.\n\n\\*\\*Exclusion Criteria\n\nSystemic conditions or medications affecting bone metabolism (e.g., bisphosphonates, corticosteroids).\n\nUntreated periodontitis, persistent oral infections, or poor oral hygiene.\n\nMetabolic bone diseases (e.g., osteoporosis, renal insufficiency, immunodeficiency, leukocyte dysfunction).\n\nHistory of head and neck radiotherapy.\n\nPhysical or mental disability preventing adequate oral hygiene or compliance.\n\nHeavy smoking (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday).\n\nAlcoholism or drug abuse.\n\nPregnancy or breastfeeding.\n\nBruxism or oral mucosal diseases.\n\nNeed for bone regeneration procedures before implant placement.\n\nInability or unwillingness to attend follow-up visits.",{"count":138,"type":21},[86],"This 24-month randomized clinical trial evaluates peri-implant marginal bone changes at subcrestal implants restored with narrow versus regular tie-base abutments.\n\nThe study investigates whether narrow or regular tie-base abutments influence peri-implant crestal bone remodeling over 24 months.\n\nThis trial assesses the effect of abutment diameter (narrow vs. regular tie-base) on marginal bone stability at subcrestal implants after 24 months.\n\nWe aimed to determine if abutment diameter impacts peri-implant marginal bone levels by comparing narrow and regular tie-base abutments in a 24-month RCT.",[272],"2025-09-19",{"date":416,"type":42},{"date":436,"type":21},"2025-09-30",{"date":420,"type":21},{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":440,"slug":441,"hasResults":12,"nctId":442,"briefTitle":443,"officialTitle":444,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":445,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":113,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":446,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":447,"conditions":448,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":450,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":451,"startDateStruct":453,"completionDateStruct":455,"leadSponsor":457,"locationsCount":73},"100603516","mandibular-overdentures-vs-all-on-4-with-peek-100603516","NCT07137533","Mandibular Overdentures vs All-on-4 With PEEK","Long-Term Peri-Implant Outcomes of Mandibular Overdentures and All-on-4 Prostheses With PEEK Frameworks","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAdults aged ≥40 years.\n\nCompletely edentulous mandible for at least 6 months prior to implant placement.\n\nTreated with either:\n\nFour-implant-retained mandibular overdenture with a PEEK framework, or\n\nMandibular All-on-4 fixed prosthesis with a PEEK framework.\n\nAll implants placed in the lateral incisor and first premolar regions (per respective protocol).\n\nRestorations fabricated via CAD\u002FCAM-milled PEEK framework with acrylic denture teeth.\n\nProsthesis delivered with a delayed loading protocol.\n\nMinimum clinical and radiographic follow-up of 4 years.\n\nAvailability of standardized baseline and follow-up periapical radiographs for marginal bone level assessment.\n\nTreated by the same surgical and prosthodontic team.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nHistory of uncontrolled systemic diseases that could affect bone healing (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, osteoporosis under bisphosphonate therapy).\n\nHistory of head and neck radiotherapy.\n\nActive periodontal or peri-implant infection at the time of implant placement.\n\nInsufficient bone volume in the interforaminal region requiring grafting beyond minor augmentation.\n\nHeavy smoking habit (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday) at the time of treatment.\n\nParafunctional habits (e.g., severe bruxism or clenching) documented in patient records.\n\nUse of medications known to affect bone metabolism (e.g., high-dose corticosteroids, antiresorptive drugs).\n\nPregnancy at the time of implant placement.\n\nIncomplete clinical or radiographic records.\n\nFollow-up period of less than 4 years.",{"count":138,"type":21},"This study compares long-term peri-implant outcomes between two mandibular full-arch rehabilitation approaches-four-implant-retained overdentures and All-on-4 fixed prostheses-when both are fabricated with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) frameworks. While overdentures and All-on-4 prostheses are widely used, evidence on the clinical performance of PEEK frameworks in these modalities is scarce. By evaluating marginal bone loss and other peri-implant parameters, the research aims to clarify whether prosthetic design influences biological outcomes when using this high-performance polymer.",[449],"Bone Loss in Jaw","2025-08-15",{"date":452,"type":42},"2025-08-22",{"date":454,"type":42},"2025-08-01",{"date":456,"type":21},"2025-10-25",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":459,"slug":460,"hasResults":12,"nctId":461,"briefTitle":462,"officialTitle":463,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":464,"healthyVolunteers":201,"sex":16,"minAge":202,"maxAge":57,"enrollmentInfo":465,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":466,"briefSummary":467,"conditions":468,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":470,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":471,"startDateStruct":473,"completionDateStruct":474,"leadSponsor":476,"locationsCount":4},"100601118","assessment-of-ozone-therapy-for-management-of-post-extraction-localized-alveolar-osteitis-100601118","NCT07106333","Assessment of Ozone Therapy for Management of Post-Extraction Localized Alveolar Osteitis","Management of Post-Extraction Localized Alveolar Osteitis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nAge: 18-60 years.\n\nPatients undergoing simple (non-surgical) extractions.\n\nMedically healthy individuals.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients already treated for AO.\n\nPresence of systemic diseases affecting healing.\n\nSevere infections or facial swelling.\n\nIncomplete follow-up.\n\nContraindications to ozone therapy: G6PD deficiency, hyperthyroidism, malignant hypertension, recent myocardial infarction.",{"count":138,"type":21},[86],"This clinical study investigates the effectiveness of ozone therapy in comparison to conventional treatment for alveolar osteitis (AO), a common painful complication following tooth extraction. Forty patients diagnosed with dry socket will be randomly divided into two groups. Group A will receive traditional treatment with normal saline irrigation and analgesics, while Group B will be treated using ozonated water, ozonated gel, and analgesics. Both groups will be monitored over a two-week period to evaluate pain levels, healing progression, and other clinical indicators. The study aims to assess the palliative and regenerative benefits of ozone therapy in managing AO, potentially offering an alternative to conventional symptomatic treatments.",[469],"Alveolar Osteitis","2025-07-29",{"date":472,"type":42},"2025-08-06",{"date":454,"type":21},{"date":475,"type":21},"2026-02-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":478,"slug":479,"hasResults":12,"nctId":480,"briefTitle":481,"officialTitle":482,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":483,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":113,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":484,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":486,"conditions":487,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":488,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":489,"startDateStruct":491,"completionDateStruct":492,"leadSponsor":494,"locationsCount":73},"100600158","mandibular-overdentures-retained-by-four-locator-attachments-versus-four-implant-bar-attachments-100600158","NCT07093853","Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Four Locator Attachments Versus Four-Implant Bar Attachments","Residual Ridge Changes in Mandibular Overdentures Retained by Four Locator Attachments Versus Four-Implant Bar Attachments: A 10-Year Retrospective Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Completely edentulous mandible and maxilla for at least 12 months.\n* Four interforaminal dental implants placed in the lateral incisor and first premolar regions.\n* Opposing maxillary complete denture constructed using a muco-compressive impression technique, with maximum denture base extension and lingualized occlusion.\n* Mandibular bone height between 15-25 mm at the symphysis region as measured on panoramic radiograph.\n* Minimum 10-year follow-up with adequate radiographic documentation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Systemic diseases affecting bone metabolism.\n* Parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism).\n* Smokers of more than 10 cigarettes\u002Fday or those with alcohol abuse.\n* Patients with implant failures, missing follow-up data, or implants placed outside the interforaminal region.",{"count":485,"type":21},22,"This 10-year retrospective study investigates residual ridge changes in edentulous patients treated with mandibular overdentures (ODs) retained by either four Locator attachments or a four-implant bar system. Although two-implant ODs are well established, four-implant configurations may offer enhanced stability and function. Locator and bar attachments are commonly used, but their long-term effects on bone resorption patterns-especially posterior mandibular and anterior maxillary resorption-remain unclear. By standardizing implant positions, this study aims to directly compare the two systems to help guide clinicians in selecting the most effective attachment type for long-term success.",[272],"2025-07-22",{"date":490,"type":42},"2025-07-30",{"date":277,"type":42},{"date":493,"type":21},"2025-10-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":496,"slug":497,"hasResults":12,"nctId":498,"briefTitle":499,"officialTitle":499,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":500,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":314,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":501,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":502,"briefSummary":503,"conditions":504,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":506,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":507,"startDateStruct":509,"completionDateStruct":511,"leadSponsor":513,"locationsCount":4},"100594506","comparative-analysis-of-bipolar-enucleation-of-the-prostate-using-different-commercial-types-of-electrodes-100594506","NCT07020325","Comparative Analysis of Bipolar Enucleation of the Prostate Using Different Commercial Types of Electrodes","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥50 years\n* Diagnosed with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH.\n* Prostate size ≥40 g based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or MRI.\n* Ability to provide informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Prostate cancer.\n* Urethral stricture disease.\n* Patients with severe cardiac comorbidities or bleeding disorders.\n* Patients on anticoagulation therapy.",{"count":363,"type":21},[86],"The goal of this randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial is to compare the enucleation efficacy of prostate enucleation using different commercial bipolar electrodes in male patients aged ≥50 years diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nWhich bipolar electrode provides the most effective enucleation?\n\nWhat are the safety and postoperative outcomes of different bipolar electrodes?\n\nWhat are the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates for each electrode type?\n\nHow does the learning curve differ among different electrode types?\n\nWhat is the cost-effectiveness of each electrode?\n\nResearchers will compare four groups, each assigned a different commercial bipolar electrode (Electrode A, B, C, or D), to determine differences in efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.\n\nParticipants will:\n\nUndergo bipolar enucleation of the prostate performed by experienced surgeons.\n\nBe randomized into one of four groups based on the electrode used.\n\nFollow a standardized surgical technique across all centres.\n\nBe monitored for intraoperative and postoperative outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period.\n\nData collection and analysis will be conducted by blinded investigators to ensure unbiased results.",[505],"Bipolar Enucleation of the Prostate","2025-06-04",{"date":508,"type":42},"2025-06-13",{"date":510,"type":21},"2025-07-01",{"date":512,"type":21},"2026-03-10",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":515,"slug":516,"hasResults":12,"nctId":517,"briefTitle":518,"officialTitle":518,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":519,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":314,"minAge":57,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":520,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":521,"conditions":522,"keywords":525,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":506,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":530,"startDateStruct":531,"completionDateStruct":533,"leadSponsor":535,"locationsCount":73},"100594508","feasibility-and-safety-of-a-single-working-element-for-bipolar-and-laser-enucleation-in-prostate-surgery-a-prospective-study-100594508","NCT07020364","Feasibility and Safety of a Single Working Element for Bipolar and Laser Enucleation in Prostate Surgery: A Prospective Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) requiring surgical intervention.\n* Prostate volume ≥40 cc (as assessed by transrectal ultrasound).\n* No prior history of prostate cancer.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with ongoing urinary tract infections.\n* Prior prostate surgeries.\n* Coagulation disorders or patients on long-term anticoagulation therapy.\n* Known urethral strictures or other anatomical abnormalities complicating endoscopic procedures.",{"count":158,"type":21},"A prospective feasibility study would be a practical first step, focusing on real-time assessment and ensuring the new working element's integration is safe and effective before broader clinical trials.",[523,524],"Prostate","BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia)",[526,527,528,529],"laser enucleation","bipolar enucleation","BPH","prostate",{"date":508,"type":42},{"date":532,"type":42},"2024-10-01",{"date":534,"type":21},"2025-11-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":537,"slug":538,"hasResults":12,"nctId":539,"briefTitle":540,"officialTitle":541,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":542,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":543,"maxAge":544,"enrollmentInfo":545,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":546,"briefSummary":547,"conditions":548,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":552,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":553,"startDateStruct":555,"completionDateStruct":557,"leadSponsor":559,"locationsCount":73},"100591780","erector-spinae-plane-block-for-children-undergoing-thoracoscopic-sympathectomy-100591780","NCT06984874","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Children Undergoing Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy","Erector Spinae Plane Block for Children Undergoing Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy: A Prospective Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age from 6 to 16 years.\n* Either sexes (male or female).\n* American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II.\n* Scheduled for bilateral thoracoscopic sympathectomy under general anesthesia.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of allergy to local anesthetics.\n* Abnormal liver\u002Fkidney function.\n* Severe spinal deformities.\n* Bleeding or coagulation disorders.\n* Skin damage or infection at the proposed puncture site.","6 Years","16 Years",{"count":138,"type":21},[86],"This study aims to evaluate the influence of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain and diaphragmatic dysfunction in pediatric patients undergoing thoracoscopic sympathectomy.",[549,550,551],"Erector Spinae Plane Block","Children","Thoracoscopic Sympathectomy","2025-05-14",{"date":554,"type":42},"2025-05-22",{"date":556,"type":42},"2025-01-15",{"date":558,"type":21},"2025-12-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":561,"slug":562,"hasResults":12,"nctId":563,"briefTitle":564,"officialTitle":565,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":566,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":16,"minAge":567,"maxAge":268,"enrollmentInfo":568,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":60,"phases":4,"briefSummary":570,"conditions":571,"keywords":572,"overallStatus":64,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":576,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":577,"startDateStruct":579,"completionDateStruct":581,"leadSponsor":583,"locationsCount":73},"100543913","biomechanical-effects-of-digitally-constructed-subperiosteal-implants-100543913","NCT06362057","Biomechanical Effects of Digitally Constructed Subperiosteal Implants","Biomechanical Effects of Digitally Constructed Subperiosteal Implants From Different Materials With Different Prosthetic Superstructures on Atrophied Maxilla: A Finite Element Analysis","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* A 3D image of an edentulous maxilla bone derived from a computed tomography scan of an adult patient.\n* Maxilla with Cawood and Howell class 4 or 5 classification\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* A 2D image of an edentulous maxilla bone\n* A non atrophied maxilla","30 Years",{"count":569,"type":21},9,"Subperiosteal implants were first introduced in 1940 and then used worldwide for the treatment of edentulous maxilla or mandible with advanced bone atrophy.",[272],[573,574,575],"Polyetherketoneketone","Titanium","Polyethereetherketone","2025-03-25",{"date":578,"type":42},"2025-03-27",{"date":580,"type":42},"2024-04-04",{"date":582,"type":21},"2025-07-27",{"name":48,"class":49},""]