Loading clinical trials...
Loading clinical trials...
A Prospective Study: Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Using Tenting Screws, Acellular Dermal Matrix and Combination Particulate Grafts.
When a tooth or teeth are extracted, a defect in the bony ridge often forms. This loss of bone may make it impossible to place a dental implant. Guided bone regeneration procedures are used to re-establish a bone dimension sufficient to place a dental implant. The primary objective of the study is to determine whether there is any difference in the gain of horizontal alveolar ridge width following guided bone regeneration surgery using a combined autogenous/allogenic particulate bone graft versus a particulate allograft alone. Autogenous bone has historically been considered the gold standard for alveolar ridge grafting; however, other materials including allografts and xenografts have also been used with excellent results. This study evaluates the potential benefits, or lack thereof, for using a combined autogenous/allograft approach versus an allograft alone. The investigators will clinically evaluate the efficacy of this technique and determine the difference in bone formation between groups following healing at 5 months by observing bone growth relative to heads of the tenting screws placed horizontally in the locations of greatest defect in the alveolar ridge. A biopsy of the healed site will be taken at the time of implant placement. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the amount of horizontal ridge width gain at 5 months post-grafting between the two different grafting materials (allograft alone versus allograft combined with autogenous bone). Furthermore, the null hypothesis is that histologically, the combination graft (MinerOss®/particulate autograft) will have a similar percentage of vital bone present at 5 months compared to the allograft-alone group (MinerOss®).
Guided bone regeneration procedures are used to re-establish a bone dimension sufficient to place a dental implant. The primary objective of the study is to determine whether there is any difference in the gain of horizontal alveolar ridge width following guided bone regeneration surgery using a combined autogenous/allogenic particulate bone graft versus a particulate allograft alone. Autogenous bone has historically been considered the gold standard for alveolar ridge grafting; however, other materials including allografts and xenografts have also been used with excellent results. This study evaluates the potential benefits, or lack thereof, for using a combined autogenous/allograft approach versus an allograft alone. The investigators will clinically evaluate the efficacy of this technique and determine the difference in bone formation between groups following healing at 5 months by observing bone growth relative to heads of the tenting screws placed horizontally in the locations of greatest defect in the alveolar ridge. A biopsy of the healed site will be taken at the time of implant placement. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the amount of horizontal ridge width gain at 5 months post-grafting between the two different grafting materials (allograft alone versus allograft combined with autogenous bone). Furthermore, the null hypothesis is that histologically, the combination graft (MinerOss®/particulate autograft) will have a similar percentage of vital bone present at 5 months compared to the allograft-alone group (MinerOss®).
Age
18 - 99 years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
Yes
University of texas Health Science Center Dental School at San Antonio
San Antonio, Texas, United States
Start Date
April 1, 2012
Primary Completion Date
July 1, 2013
Completion Date
July 1, 2013
Last Updated
January 2, 2018
34
ACTUAL participants
allograft alone
DEVICE
allograft with autograft
DEVICE
Lead Sponsor
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Data Source & Attribution
This clinical trial information is sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Modifications: This data has been reformatted for display purposes. Eligibility criteria have been parsed into inclusion/exclusion sections. Location data has been geocoded to enable distance-based search. For the authoritative and most current information, please visit ClinicalTrials.gov.
Neither the United States Government nor Clareo Health make any warranties regarding the data. Check ClinicalTrials.gov frequently for updates.
View ClinicalTrials.gov Terms and Conditions