[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"extraction-tooth\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:extraction-tooth":28},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,47,79,111],{"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":32,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":36,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":37,"startDateStruct":40,"completionDateStruct":42,"leadSponsor":44,"locationsCount":4},"100641017","platelet-rich-fibrin-prf-vs-bone-graft-with-membrane-for-ridge-preservation-after-tooth-extraction-100641017",false,"NCT07595198","Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) vs Bone Graft With Membrane for Ridge Preservation After Tooth Extraction","Application of Platelet-Rich Fibrin Consolidated Bone Substitutes in Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients of age between 18-80.\n2. Non-smokers or former smokers with at least a 5-year successful cessation history.\n3. Patients with normal systemic health (ASA-I) or well-controlled\u002Fstable systemic conditions (ASA-II), such as diabetes with HbA1c \\\u003C 7.0%, no recent acute myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accidents within 6 months, or any contraindication for periodontal or implant surgery.\n4. Patients treatment planned for extraction and ridge preservation for at least 2 non-adjacent single-rooted teeth.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Current smokers, smokers who have quit \\\u003C5 years prior to study entry.\n2. Pregnant or lactating women\n3. Patients with substance or alcohol abuse\n4. Patients with a history of antiresorptive therapy, head and neck radiotherapy, and chemotherapy for malignant tumors\n5. Other systemic conditions or medications affecting wound healing.\n6. Poor plaque control with plaque score \\> 20%\n7. Active\u002Funtreated odontogenic and periodontal infections",true,"ALL","18 Years","80 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},14,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This study uses a natural material called Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) to help improve healing after tooth removal. PRF is made from your own blood. A small amount of blood is taken from your arm and spun in a machine to make a thick, sticky layer full of platelets. These platelets help your body heal. PRF acts like a \"natural bandage\" and may help your gums and bone heal faster. Because it comes from your own body, it is safe and lowers the chance of infection or problems.\n\nThe goal of this research is to see if adding PRF to a bone graft (used to fill the tooth socket after extraction) can help the area heal faster and grow more new bone.\n\nIf you join this study, it will last about 4 months. You will have two teeth removed, and each socket will get a different treatment:\n\n1. One socket (test side) will get PRF + bone graft (this combination is also called \"sticky bone\").\n2. The other socket (control side) will get a bone graft + a covering called a barrier membrane (made of collagen).\n\nWe will compare how well the two sides heal by looking at:\n\n1. How the gums close over the area\n2. How much pain you feel\n3. How much the bone changes\n4. How much new bone grows You will come to the clinic for about 9 visits in total. These visits are part of your regular treatment, along with a few extra steps for the study.\n\nOne possible risk is bruising or soreness from the blood draw. If we cannot collect enough blood (about 60-80 ml) because your veins are too small or hard to find, you will not continue in the study, and both sockets will be treated using the control method (bone graft + membrane).",[28,29,30,31],"Extraction, Tooth","Tooth Fracture","Tooth Crown Fracture","Root; Fracture",[33,34],"Platelet Rich Fibrin","Extraction, tooth","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-05-12",{"date":38,"type":39},"2026-05-19","ACTUAL",{"date":41,"type":22},"2026-06-01",{"date":43,"type":22},"2027-06-01",{"name":45,"class":46},"Ohio State University","OTHER",{"id":48,"slug":49,"hasResults":11,"nctId":50,"briefTitle":51,"officialTitle":52,"acronym":53,"eligibilityCriteria":54,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":55,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":57,"briefSummary":58,"conditions":59,"keywords":63,"overallStatus":68,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":69,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":70,"startDateStruct":72,"completionDateStruct":74,"leadSponsor":76,"locationsCount":78},"100571609","comparison-of-two-types-of-bone-grafts-in-patients-who-need-one-of-their-front-teeth-removed-and-replaced-with-an-implant-100571609","NCT06722482","Comparison of Two Types of Bone Grafts in Patients Who Need One of Their Front Teeth Removed and Replaced With an Implant","Clinical Evaluation of Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft Compared to Collagen-Enriched Bovine Xenograft for Alveolar Ridge Preservation of Anterior Extraction Sockets.","FDBA or CEBX","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients able to provide informed consent\n* patients of 18 years of age or older at time of consent and enrollment\n* patients in need of at least one anterior tooth extraction and seeking dental implant replacement\n* bone on the buccal of the central\u002Flateral incisors or canines planned for extraction that is either intact or has a dehiscence \\\u003C\u002F=5mm as determined radiographically through cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* current smokers or tobacco-product users (self-reported)\n* uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c≥7 in the last 3 months)\n* pregnant and\u002For lactating females (self-reported)\n* patients on immunosuppressants, steroids, bisphosphonates or other medications that have been related to Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) as described by the American Association of Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) 2014 update\n* patients with history of radiation of the head and neck\n* patients with allergy to collagen, bacitracin and\u002For polymyxin B\n* patients with religious or cultural beliefs that prohibit the use of either allograft or bovine graft material\n* patients with physical and\u002For mental\u002Fcognitive disabilities (self-reported) or decisionally-impaired, not able to consent for themselves\n* patients with untreated periodontitis\n* patients with central\u002Flateral incisors or canines requiring extraction and are adjacent to an edentulous area\n* patients with central\u002Flateral incisors or canines with buccal bone dehiscence \\>5mm",{"count":56,"type":22},50,[25],"The purpose of this study is to compare two different bone graft materials (freeze-dried bone allograft, FDBA and collagen-enriched bovine xenograft, CEBX) that are routinely used for preserving the remaining bone after extraction of an anterior tooth, and before placing a dental implant. Patients will be randomly assigned to either group (flip of a coin) One group will receive FDBA material and the other group will receive CEBX (cow) material.\n\nThe study aims to examine the following main questions:\n\n* Potential differences in linear radiographic horizontal (HRD) and vertical (VRD) ridge dimensional changes between groups after 16 weeks of healing\n* Other clinical information of the treated areas and information regarding the esthetics of the dental implant that will subsequently be placed at the edentulous site as well as patient satisfaction with the treatment, will be evaluated.\n\nThe study will include 7 study visits. Study procedures will take place during the same visits as the standard of care treatments (tooth extraction and bone graft, dental implant placement, crown installation and follow-ups). Clinical information from these standard of care visits will be used for the current research study, such as:\n\n* Demographic information\n* Clinical information from intraoral photographs\n* Radiographic information from cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs.",[60,61,28,62],"Ridge Preservation","Allografts","Xenograft",[64,65,66,67],"alveolar ridge preservation","tooth extraction","freeze-dried bone allograft","collagen-enriched bovine xenograft","RECRUITING","2026-01-07",{"date":71,"type":39},"2026-01-09",{"date":73,"type":39},"2023-11-27",{"date":75,"type":22},"2026-11-01",{"name":77,"class":46},"University of Rochester",1,{"id":80,"slug":81,"hasResults":11,"nctId":82,"briefTitle":83,"officialTitle":84,"acronym":85,"eligibilityCriteria":86,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":87,"maxAge":88,"enrollmentInfo":89,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":91,"briefSummary":92,"conditions":93,"keywords":97,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":104,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":105,"startDateStruct":107,"completionDateStruct":108,"leadSponsor":109,"locationsCount":4},"100604967","sleeperone-vs-conventional-infiltration-pain-perception-in-mandibular-primary-molar-extraction-100604967","NCT07156396","SleeperOne vs. Conventional Infiltration: Pain Perception in Mandibular Primary Molar Extraction","Comparative Evaluation of A Novel Anesthetic Device vs. Conventional Infiltration in Pain Perception Among A Group of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Extraction Of Mandibular Primary Molars: A Randomized Clinical Trial","SOTIMAN","Inclusion criteria:\n\n* Children Aged between 3 to 5 years.\n* Medically fit children classified as ASA physical status I and II\n* Parents acceptance to participate in the study (informed consent)\n* Children with teeth diagnostically confirmed to require extraction\n\nExclusion criteria:\n\n* Patients with an allergy to local anesthesia.\n* Uncooperative children\n* Children requiring general anesthesia","3 Years","5 Years",{"count":90,"type":22},28,[25],"This clinical trial is being conducted in the Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. The purpose of the study is to compare the pain perception and comfort of children during tooth extraction when using a computer-controlled local anesthetic device (SleeperOne® 5) versus the conventional syringe infiltration technique.\n\nChildren between 3 and 5 years of age who require extraction of a maxillary primary molar will be invited to participate. Before starting, a topical anesthetic gel (benzocaine) will be applied. Then, local anesthesia will be given using either the SleeperOne® device or the traditional syringe, depending on the group assigned.\n\nPain during injection and extraction will be assessed using both child-friendly rating scales and independent evaluation by the dentist. Patient anxiety, heart rate, and blood pressure will also be recorded.\n\nThis study aims to provide evidence on whether computer-controlled anesthesia can reduce children's pain and anxiety compared with the conventional method, leading to a more comfortable dental experience.\n\nThe study is a randomized clinical trial and will be conducted in a single visit at the Pediatric Dentistry Outpatient Clinic, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. The results may help improve pain management and patient comfort during dental treatment for children.",[94,95,96,28],"Dental Anxiety","Pain","Pain Management",[98,99,100,101,102,103],"Pediatric dentistry","Tooth extraction","conventional infiltration","sleeperOne 5","Computer-Controlled anesthesia","Pain Perception","2025-09-02",{"date":106,"type":39},"2025-09-05",{"date":104,"type":22},{"date":104,"type":22},{"name":110,"class":46},"Ameera Alaa Eldin Abdalazim Khalifa",{"id":112,"slug":113,"hasResults":11,"nctId":114,"briefTitle":115,"officialTitle":116,"acronym":117,"eligibilityCriteria":118,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":87,"maxAge":88,"enrollmentInfo":119,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":121,"briefSummary":122,"conditions":123,"keywords":124,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":129,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":130,"startDateStruct":132,"completionDateStruct":134,"leadSponsor":136,"locationsCount":4},"100602480","comparison-of-pain-perception-in-a-group-of-pediatric-patients-undergoing-maxillary-primary-molar-extraction-using-a-novel-anesthetic-device-versus-traditional-infiltration-100602480","NCT07124052","Comparison of Pain Perception in A Group of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Maxillary Primary Molar Extraction Using A Novel Anesthetic Device Versus Traditional Infiltration","Comparison of Pain Perception in a Group of Pediatric Patients Undergoing Maxillary Primary Molar Extraction Using a Novel Anesthetic Device Versus Conventional Infiltration: A Randomized Controlled Trial","SO5PED","* Inclusion criteria:\n\n  * Children aged 3-5 years old\n  * Medically fit children classified as ASA physical status I and II\n  * Parents acceptance to participate in the study (informed consent)\n  * Pediatric patients having teeth that have been diagnostically confirmed as requiring extraction.\n\nExclusion criteria:\n\n* Uncooperative children.\n* Patients with an allergy to local anesthesia.\n* Children in need of treatment under general anesthesia.",{"count":120,"type":22},2,[25],"This study aims to compare the pain felt by children during tooth extraction using two different techniques for giving local anesthesia. One group of children will receive anesthesia using a modern electronic device called SleeperOne® 5, which controls the flow and pressure of the anesthesia to reduce pain. The other group will receive anesthesia using the traditional syringe method, which is more commonly used in dental clinics.\n\nThe study will include children between the ages of 3 and 5 years old who need to have an upper baby molar tooth extracted. All children in the study will be healthy (classified as ASA I or II), and their parents must agree to participate.\n\nDuring the procedure, each child will first receive a topical anesthetic gel to numb the surface. Then, based on random selection, the child will receive local anesthesia using either the SleeperOne® 5 device or the traditional syringe. Pain levels during the injection and during the extraction will be measured using special scales suitable for children. Other factors like how long the anesthesia takes to work and how long it lasts will also be recorded.\n\nThis research will help dentists understand whether the SleeperOne® 5 device offers a more comfortable experience for young children compared to the traditional method. The goal is to reduce fear and pain during dental treatments for kids.",[95,28],[125,103,126,127,128],"Pediatric Dentistry","SleeperOne 5","Computer-Controlled Anesthesia","Conventional Infiltration","2025-08-16",{"date":131,"type":39},"2025-08-22",{"date":133,"type":22},"2025-08-18",{"date":135,"type":22},"2026-09-18",{"name":137,"class":46},"Aya Hesham ElSayed Mohamed ElTanahy"]