[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"alveolar-bone-resorption\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:alveolar-bone-resorption":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,3,0,[8,43,74],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":32,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":33,"startDateStruct":36,"completionDateStruct":38,"leadSponsor":40,"locationsCount":4},"100631112","is-cross-linked-hyaluronic-acid-a-biologic-alternative-for-alveolar-ridge-preservation-100631112",false,"NCT07496437","Is Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid a Biologic Alternative for Alveolar Ridge Preservation?","Is Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid a Biologic Alternative for Alveolar Ridge Preservation? A Single-blind, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n(1) Patients elder than 18 years in need of (2) maxillary non-molar tooth extraction, and (3) later rehabilitation with delayed implant installation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n(1) Patients with chronic diseases (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, etc.) and\u002For (2) taking any medication, influencing hard or soft-tissue healing; (3) acute pain\u002Finfection or (4) presence of a fistula at the extraction site; (5) untreated periodontal disease; (6) \\>25% of the buccal bone plate missing after tooth extraction; (7) pregnancy; (8) history of hypersensitivity or allergy to xHyA or xenogenic bone substitute material; and (9) inability to attend the follow-up appointments.",true,"ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},48,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","Even after atraumatic tooth removal and\u002For immediate implant placement, some reduction of the alveolar ridge dimension is expected. To counteract (or limit) this reduction, alveolar ridge preservation technique (ARP) was developed. However, standard ARP techniques, such as grafting with bone substitutes, have some concerns, such as a long healing time prior to implant installation, residual graft particles, and often the need of re-grafting at implant installation. To overcome some of these limitations biologics have been discussed as an alternative approach, such as cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA). However, whether the use of biologics only can achieve comparable results to the standard techniques, has yet to be answered.\n\nThe aim of the present single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial is to test non-inferiority in terms of mid-buccal alveolar ridge height resorption 4 months after ARP between 1) control\u002Fstandard treatment (i.e., grafting with bone substitutes and socket seal) and 2) test treatment (i.e., xHyA applied with a collagen sponge and socket seal) at maxillary non-molar teeth.\n\nForty-eight patients will be included and randomly assigned to one of the following 2 groups: 1) control group: standard ARP with deproteinized bovine bone material and covering of the socket with a free gingival graft (FGG) (n=24), 2) test group: application of xHyA soaked in a collagen sponge and covered by a FGG (n=24). The primary outcome parameter is the extent of mid-buccal alveolar ridge height resorption after 4 months, i.e., prior to implant installation, and the sample size calculation is based on a non-inferiority limit of 0.6 mm. The secondary outcome parameters are frequency of additional grafting at implant installation due to 1) a bony dehiscence or fenestration, 2) a thin buccal bone (\\\u003C 1.5 mm), or 3) contour improvement, cervical alveolar ridge width, alveolar ridge volume, histomorphometric assessment of alveolar ridge healing, feasibility of implant installation, aesthetic outcome parameters, patient reported outcome measures, changes in keratinized mucosa width, soft tissue healing, and assessment of postoperative complications. Patients will be followed up to 1 year after prosthetic restoration.",[27,28,29,30],"Alveolar Bone Resorption","Alveolar Ridge Enlargement","Tooth Extraction","Hyaluronic Acid","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-03-22",{"date":34,"type":35},"2026-03-27","ACTUAL",{"date":37,"type":21},"2026-04-01",{"date":39,"type":21},"2028-12-31",{"name":41,"class":42},"Medical University of Vienna","OTHER",{"id":44,"slug":45,"hasResults":11,"nctId":46,"briefTitle":47,"officialTitle":48,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":49,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":50,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":52,"briefSummary":53,"conditions":54,"keywords":57,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":64,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":65,"startDateStruct":67,"completionDateStruct":69,"leadSponsor":71,"locationsCount":73},"100628985","peri-implant-hard-and-soft-tissue-changes-after-immediate-implant-placement-with-socket-shield-and-immediate-restoration-versus-early-implant-placement-in-the-esthetic-zone-100628985","NCT07468760","Peri-Implant Hard and Soft Tissue Changes After Immediate Implant Placement With Socket Shield and Immediate Restoration Versus Early Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone","Evaluation of Peri-implant Hard And Soft Tissues Changes Between Immediate Implant Placement With Socket Shield Technique and Immediate Restoration Versus Early Type II Implant Placement in The Esthetic Zone - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Adults aged 18 years or older\n2. Patients presenting with a single non-restorable tooth in the esthetic zone indicated for extraction and implant replacement\n3. Presence of a thin buccal bone plate (\\\u003C1 mm)\n4. Adequate bone volume to allow implant placement in a prosthetically ideal position\n5. Intact socket walls following tooth extraction\n6. Ability to achieve primary implant stability ≥35 Ncm at the time of implant placement\n7. Patients willing to participate in the study and able to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. History of systemic diseases that may affect bone healing\n2. Use of medications that may influence bone metabolism (e.g., bisphosphonates)\n3. Smoking within the past 5 years\n4. Presence of acute infection at the surgical site or adjacent teeth\n5. Teeth with vertical or subcrestal horizontal root fractures on the buccal aspect\n6. Presence of internal or external root resorption\n7. Severe periodontal destruction at the implant site",{"count":51,"type":21},42,[24],"This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to compare peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes following immediate implant placement with the socket shield technique and immediate restoration versus early type II implant placement with contour graft in the esthetic zone. The primary outcome is the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), while secondary outcomes include mid-facial mucosal recession, radiographic vertical and horizontal buccal bone remodeling, and patient satisfaction after 12 months.",[55,27,56],"Tooth Loss in the Anterior Maxilla","Partial Edentulism of the Maxilla",[58,59,60,61,62,63],"Socket Shield Technique","Immediate Implant Placement","Early Implant Placement","Pink Esthetic Score","Partial Extraction Therapy","Buccal Bone Remodeling","2026-03-09",{"date":66,"type":35},"2026-03-13",{"date":68,"type":21},"2026-03-30",{"date":70,"type":21},"2027-05-30",{"name":72,"class":42},"Gulf Medical University",1,{"id":75,"slug":76,"hasResults":11,"nctId":77,"briefTitle":78,"officialTitle":79,"acronym":80,"eligibilityCriteria":81,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":82,"enrollmentInfo":83,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":85,"briefSummary":87,"conditions":88,"keywords":92,"overallStatus":31,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":96,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":97,"startDateStruct":99,"completionDateStruct":101,"leadSponsor":103,"locationsCount":4},"100534742","phase-3-vertical-ridge-augmentation-strategies-100534742","NCT06242782","Vertical Ridge Augmentation Strategies","Vertical Ridge Augmentation Strategies: An Adaptive Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial","VARGAS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Partially edentulous with a ridge that shows at least 3mm vertical bone deficiency;\n2. Females of childbearing potential and males agree to use an effective method of contraception from the time consent is signed until treatment discontinuation.\n3. Females of childbearing potential have a negative pregnancy test within 7 days prior to being registered. Participants are considered not of child bearing potential if they are surgically sterile (i.e. they have undergone a hysterectomy, bilateral tubal ligation, or bilateral oophorectomy) or they are postmenopausal.\n4. Willing and able to provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Comorbidities (or regular use of medications)\n2. History of bone augmentation or implant placement at the area of interest\n3. Females who are pregnant, planning pregnancy or breastfeeding\n4. Regular use of analgesic or antibiotics within 1 month before entering the study\n5. Disclosed smoking (including electronic cigarettes) or drinking over 14 alcoholic units per week\n6. Active oral diseases or poor oral hygiene (defined by full mouth dental plaque scores greater than 25%)\n7. Suspected or documented titanium allergy or intolerance\n8. Concurrent and\u002For recent involvement in other research that is likely to interfere with the intervention within last 3 months of study enrolment","70 Years",{"count":84,"type":21},148,[86],"PHASE3","Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) is an invaluable and beneficial surgical technique adopted when there is the need to augment an alveolar atrophy. Strong clinical and histologic evidence exists on the effectiveness and predictability of GBR in bone augmentation of ridge deficiencies. On the other hand, it is well known that GBR remains a challenge as in the most extreme cases, it is considered a highly technique-sensitive surgical procedure.\n\nWhilst there are numerous reviews which report the average incidence of complications in GBR, there is still insufficient evidence and manuscripts reporting a direct correlation between a specific biomaterial (membrane or scaffold) and observed complications. Only one recent systematic review and meta-analysis focused on wound healing complications following GBR for ridge augmentation procedures. Authors explored the complication rate based on the membrane type and on the timing of the first sign of soft tissue complications following bone augmentation procedures. They reported a complication rate of 17% of the overall soft tissue complications, including membrane exposure, soft tissue dehiscence, and acute infection (abscess). This estimate is consistent with that reported (12%) in a more recent systematic appraisal of the evidence on all types of complications in GBR (3). However, when horizontal augmentation procedures were reviewed, a higher rate (21%) of complications was reported within the first 18 months of a GBR procedure. This estimate was inclusive of all possible biologic complications following GBR whilst the rate of membrane exposure was of 23%.\n\nVertical bone augmentation represents one of the most challenging bone regenerative procedures in surgical dentistry. This is because of the inherent difficulties of the surgical procedure and the high risk of complications. The primary aim of this procedure is to recreate alveolar bone in a vertical direction (without the support of any pre-existing walls) and enable recreation of a more favourable anatomy for the restoration of the edentulous site.\n\nEvidence on a variety of treatment options has been produced over the last 15 years including distraction osteogenesis, onlay bone grafting, and vertical ridge augmentation (VRA). Systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of different surgical procedures for VRA either in a staged or a simultaneous fashion, reported a range of vertical bone gain of 2-8 mm. This gain was gradually lost (1.27 to 2.0mm) between 1 to 7 years post-surgery and a wide range of complications (0- 45.5%) has been reported.\n\nThe aim of this study is to assess and compare incidence of complications and percentage of vertical bone gain when using four different barrier membranes in combination with 50\u002F50 autogenous and xenogenous bone material in VRA procedures. Secondary aims will be to evaluate and compare early and late soft tissue wound healing, gingival microvasculature and structure, patient reported outcomes and the prevalence of need for further bone augmentation and need for soft tissue grafting. Additionally, this study will also aim to assess and compare histomorphometry and histochemistry analyses of core biopsies obtained before implant placement between the four different barrier membranes.",[27,89,90,91],"Alveolar Ridge Trauma","Alveolar Bone Loss","Complication of Surgical Procedure",[93,94,95],"Vertical Ridge Augmentation","Vertical Bone Augmentation","Alveolar Bone Grafting","2024-02-02",{"date":98,"type":35},"2024-02-05",{"date":100,"type":21},"2024-02",{"date":102,"type":21},"2030-02",{"name":104,"class":42},"University College, London"]