[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"xenograft\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:xenograft":31},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,47,81,106],{"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":34,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":35,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":36,"startDateStruct":39,"completionDateStruct":41,"leadSponsor":43,"locationsCount":46},"100644844","evaluation-of-lateral-sinus-floor-elevation-using-xenograft-versus-l-prf-block-combined-with-xenograft-100644844",false,"NCT07677007","Evaluation of Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation Using Xenograft Versus L-PRF Block Combined With Xenograft","Evaluation of Lateral Sinus Floor Elevation Using Xenograft Versus L-PRF Block Combined With Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 21 years or older.\n* Partially edentulous posterior maxilla requiring implant-supported rehabilitation.\n* Residual bone height between 2 and 5 mm measured by CBCT.\n* Good oral hygiene and compliance with maintenance visits.\n* ASA I or II patients.\n* Signed informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Uncontrolled systemic diseases.\n* Smoking more than 10 cigarettes\u002Fday.\n* Active sinus pathology or chronic sinusitis.\n* Previous sinus augmentation surgery.\n* Pregnancy or lactation.\n* Bisphosphonate therapy.\n* Immunocompromised patients.\n* History of head and neck radiotherapy",true,"ALL","21 Years","70 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},30,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","Rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla with dental implants is frequently complicated by insufficient residual bone height resulting from alveolar ridge resorption and maxillary sinus pneumatization. Lateral sinus floor elevation has become a predictable and widely accepted procedure for increasing bone volume and enabling implant placement in severely atrophic posterior maxillary sites. The long-term success of this procedure is largely dependent on the grafting material used to maintain space beneath the elevated Schneiderian membrane and promote new bone formation.\n\nDeproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), commonly known as xenograft, remains the most extensively documented grafting material for sinus augmentation due to its osteoconductive properties, volumetric stability, and favorable long-term clinical outcomes. However, xenografts are characterized by slow remodeling and prolonged persistence of residual graft particles, which may delay replacement by vital bone. Consequently, strategies to enhance the biological activity of xenografts and accelerate bone regeneration have become an area of considerable research interest.\n\nLeukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) is a second-generation autologous platelet concentrate containing a fibrin matrix enriched with platelets, leukocytes, cytokines, and growth factors including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). These biological mediators may enhance angiogenesis, accelerate wound healing, stimulate osteoblast proliferation, and improve bone regeneration.\n\nSeveral studies have demonstrated promising outcomes when L-PRF is used in sinus augmentation procedures. Mazor et al. reported successful bone formation and implant placement following sinus augmentation using PRF as the sole grafting material after six months of healing. Histological analysis demonstrated the formation of newly regenerated vital bone within the augmented sinus compartment.\n\nMore recently, Cortellini et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing L-PRF block and DBBM in lateral sinus floor elevation. Although both techniques allowed successful implant placement after six months, differences in volumetric stability and graft remodeling were observed. The authors suggested that L-PRF-containing grafts may represent a biologically active alternative capable of enhancing healing while maintaining sufficient bone volume for implant placement.\n\nPichotano et al. further demonstrated that combining L-PRF with DBBM accelerated bone maturation and facilitated earlier implant placement when compared with xenograft alone. Histomorphometric findings revealed greater percentages of newly formed bone and reduced healing times in the L-PRF group.\n\nDespite these promising findings, the available evidence remains limited, and there is no clear consensus regarding whether the addition of L-PRF to xenografts results in clinically significant improvements in bone regeneration, volumetric maintenance, and implant site development. Therefore, a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing xenograft alone versus L-PRF block combined with xenograft during lateral sinus floor elevation is warranted.",[28,29,30,31],"Sinus Floor Augmentation","Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation","Sinus Lift","Xenograft",[33],"maxillary sinus","RECRUITING","2026-06-24",{"date":37,"type":38},"2026-06-30","ACTUAL",{"date":40,"type":38},"2026-01-01",{"date":42,"type":22},"2027-02-01",{"name":44,"class":45},"Gulf Medical University","OTHER",1,{"id":48,"slug":49,"hasResults":11,"nctId":50,"briefTitle":51,"officialTitle":52,"acronym":53,"eligibilityCriteria":54,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":55,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":56,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":58,"briefSummary":59,"conditions":60,"keywords":67,"overallStatus":71,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":72,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":73,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":77,"leadSponsor":79,"locationsCount":46},"100632963","socket-shield-technique-with-cgf-and-xenograft-for-immediate-implants-100632963","NCT07520513","Socket Shield Technique With CGF and Xenograft for Immediate Implants","Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Bone Grafting Using Concentrated Growth Factors and Xenograft With Simultaneous Immediate Implant Placement in Socket Shield Technique","CGF","Inclusion criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years old. (Younis, W., \\& El-Rashidy, A. 2020).\n* Both male and female patients.\n* Maxillary, anterior and premolar segments.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* A medical history that contraindicates oral surgical treatment such as (uncontrolled\u002Funtreated diabetes mellitus, immuno-compromised status, radio or chemotherapy of the oral and maxillofacial region, treatment with oral and\u002For intravenous bisphosphonates).\n* Presence of active or untreated periodontal disease.\n* Vertical root fractures involving the buccal aspect.\n* Tooth \u002Fteeth with horizontal fractures below bone level.\n* Tooth \u002Fteeth with external or internal resorption.\n* Patients with destructive oral habits such as smoking, chewing tobacco, bruxism, etcetera.","18 Years",{"count":57,"type":22},7,[25],"This prospective case series aims to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediate implant placement using the socket shield technique combined with concentrated growth factors (CGF) and xenograft in the esthetic zone. The study will assess crestal bone level changes and implant stability over a 6-month follow-up period.",[61,62,63,64,65,31,66],"Alveolar Bone Loss","Socket Shield Technique","Bone Resorption","Immediate Dental Implant Placement","Concentrated Growth Factors","Alveolar Bone Preservation",[68,69,70,31],"immediate implants","socket shield technique","Concentrated growth factor","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-04-08",{"date":74,"type":38},"2026-04-13",{"date":76,"type":22},"2026-04-05",{"date":78,"type":22},"2026-12-30",{"name":80,"class":45},"Cairo University",{"id":82,"slug":83,"hasResults":11,"nctId":84,"briefTitle":85,"officialTitle":86,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":87,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":88,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":89,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":91,"briefSummary":92,"conditions":93,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":71,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":97,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":98,"startDateStruct":100,"completionDateStruct":102,"leadSponsor":104,"locationsCount":46},"100620805","autologous-dentine-graft-compared-to-xenograft-in-managing-periodontally-compromised-second-molar-after-third-molar-removal-100620805","NCT07362394","Autologous Dentine Graft Compared to Xenograft in Managing Periodontally Compromised Second Molar After Third Molar Removal","Autologous Dentine Graft Compared to Xenograft in Managing Periodontally Compromised Second Molar After Third Molar Removal - A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients aged 26 years and above who can give informed consent and are scheduled for bilateral surgical removal of mesioangular or horizontally impacted mandibular M3s\n* Present with a periodontally compromised mandibular second molar, defined by the presence of probing pocket depth (PPD) greater than 4 mm on the distal aspect\n* Type of impaction of M3s on both sides must be symmetrical\n* Consent to the use of xenograft as control\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Smokers\n* Poor oral hygiene with \\>30% full mouth plaque score (FMPS)\n* Pregnant or lactating mothers\n* Have uncontrolled systemic conditions such as diabetes or immunodeficiency disorders\n* On medications that affect bone metabolism, including bisphosphonates or corticosteroids\n* History of periodontal surgery or grafting at the intended surgical site\n* Presence of acute infection and M2s with distal caries and Grade III mobility","26 Years",{"count":90,"type":22},34,[25],"The goal of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of autologous dentin graft (ADG) in treating periodontal defects on the distal aspect of mandibular 2nd molar (M2) after surgical removal of impacted mandibular 3rd molar (M3) by improving periodontal and radiological outcomes when compared with a xenograft, which is commercially available. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\n1. How does the clinical efficacy of ADG compare to xenografts, regarding wound healing and periodontal parameters at the distal aspect of periodontally compromised mandibular M2 following impacted M3 extraction?\n2. How does the radiological bone regeneration at ADG-grafted sites differ from that at xenograft-grafted sites?\n3. How do the post-operative patient-reported outcomes at sites receiving ADG differ from those at sites receiving xenografts?\n\nResearchers will compare ADG to xenograft to see if ADG is more efficacious in managing periodontal defects on distal aspect of M2 after surgical removal of M3.\n\nParticipants will\n\n1. Undergo bilateral surgical removal of M3 under general anaesthesia\n2. Receive ADG on test site and xenograft on contralateral control site\n3. Come back for clinical assessments, wound healing assessments and radiographic assessments for 5 times after the surgery (2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months)",[94,95,31,96],"Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Extraction","Dentin Graft","Bone Defects","2026-01-15",{"date":99,"type":38},"2026-01-23",{"date":101,"type":22},"2026-06-01",{"date":103,"type":22},"2028-06-30",{"name":105,"class":45},"National University of Malaysia",{"id":107,"slug":108,"hasResults":11,"nctId":109,"briefTitle":110,"officialTitle":111,"acronym":112,"eligibilityCriteria":113,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":55,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":114,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":116,"briefSummary":117,"conditions":118,"keywords":122,"overallStatus":34,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":127,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":128,"startDateStruct":130,"completionDateStruct":132,"leadSponsor":134,"locationsCount":46},"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":115,"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.",[119,120,121,31],"Ridge Preservation","Allografts","Extraction, Tooth",[123,124,125,126],"alveolar ridge preservation","tooth extraction","freeze-dried bone allograft","collagen-enriched bovine xenograft","2026-01-07",{"date":129,"type":38},"2026-01-09",{"date":131,"type":38},"2023-11-27",{"date":133,"type":22},"2026-11-01",{"name":135,"class":45},"University of Rochester"]