[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"dental-implant\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:dental-implant":29},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":7,"results":8},null,57,0,25,[9,50,87,116,152,181,203,239,262,290,324,346,373,394,422,454,480,507,532,556,579,603,631,655,682],{"id":10,"slug":11,"hasResults":12,"nctId":13,"briefTitle":14,"officialTitle":15,"acronym":16,"eligibilityCriteria":17,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":21,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":25,"briefSummary":27,"conditions":28,"keywords":31,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":39,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":40,"startDateStruct":43,"completionDateStruct":45,"leadSponsor":47,"locationsCount":4},"100652647","comparative-assessment-of-primary-stability-in-double-and-triple-thread-implant-designs-100652647",false,"NCT07775443","Comparative Assessment of Primary Stability in Double, and Triple Thread Implant Designs","Comparative Assessment of Primary Stability in Double, and Triple Thread Implant Designs in the Posterior Maxilla","1th stability","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 18-60 years.\n* Medically healthy individuals without any systemic disease that affects bone healing (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, osteoporosis).\n* Patients requiring dental implants in the posterior maxilla.\n* Adequate bone volume for implant placement.\n* Signed informed consent for participation in the study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Smokers (due to the potential negative impact on bone healing and implant success).\n* Pregnant or breastfeeding women.\n* Patients with a history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy.\n* Patients with severe periodontal disease.\n* Individuals with a history of allergic reactions to implant materials.","ALL","20 Years","55 Years",{"count":22,"type":23},20,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[26],"NA","The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the primary stability of double-thread and triple-thread dental implant designs in patients requiring implant placement in the posterior maxilla.\n\nThe main question it aims to answer is whether implant thread design influences primary implant stability in the posterior maxilla.\n\nParticipants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A will receive a double-thread dental implant, while Group B will receive a triple-thread dental implant. Primary implant stability will be assessed at the time of implant placement using insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis (ISQ).implant stability using ISQ will also be evaluated at 3 months",[29,30],"Dental Implant","Primary Stability of the Implants",[32,33,34,35,36,37],"dental implant","primary implant stability","primary stability","thread design","double thread","triple thread","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-08-17",{"date":41,"type":42},"2026-08-20","ACTUAL",{"date":44,"type":23},"2026-09-01",{"date":46,"type":23},"2027-01-30",{"name":48,"class":49},"Future University in Egypt","OTHER",{"id":51,"slug":52,"hasResults":12,"nctId":53,"briefTitle":54,"officialTitle":54,"acronym":55,"eligibilityCriteria":56,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":57,"enrollmentInfo":58,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":60,"briefSummary":61,"conditions":62,"keywords":70,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":77,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":78,"startDateStruct":80,"completionDateStruct":82,"leadSponsor":84,"locationsCount":86},"100648842","tissue-preservation-in-immediate-1c-implants-using-an-anatomical-prefabricated-healing-abutment-100648842","NCT07727980","Tissue Preservation in Immediate 1C Implants Using an Anatomical Prefabricated Healing Abutment","Aharct","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Willing to sign an IRB-approved informed consent and HIPAA authorization form prior to participation.\n* Between the ages of 20 and 75 years old.\n* ASA Classification I and II.\n* Hopeless maxillary or mandibular posterior teeth, eligible for immediate implantation, and with intact\u002Fsuccessfully restored adjacent teeth.\n* Willing to perform tasks associated with the study and to attend all study visits.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* HbA1c \\>6.5%) as per a chairside test (Siemens Bayer DCA 2000+);\n* smoker (any status);\n* immunodeficiency;\n* history of head and neck radiotherapy;\n* intake of bone anti-resorptive drugs;\n* cysts or tumors in the area;\n* self-reported pregnancy;\n* poor oral hygiene;\n* active periodontal disease;\n* acute endodontic infection and pus discharge on the site itself and adjacent areas;\n* lack of mutually protected occlusion;\n* insufficient inter-occlusal clearance (\\\u003C15 mm);\n* sites with an existing midfacial mucogingival recession\u002Fdeficiency (scar tissue);\n* sites with a high-scalloped, thin biotype.\n\nThose who appear to qualify will have a CBCT scan taken with an open bite and proper retractions of the cheek, lips, and tongue (standard of care), and the following inclusion criteria, based on the CBCT results, must be present in order for the subject to be fully enrolled in the study:\n\n* Sites with an intact or minimally damaged facial bone plate measuring greater than 1 mm in thickness;\n* Sites with at least 5 mm of healthy bone between the socket apex and the relevant anatomical structure (e.g., the maxillary sinus floor in the maxilla or the inferior alveolar nerve, submandibular\u002Fsublingual fossa, mental foramen, or anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve in the mandible);\n* In multirooted molar sockets, the presence of a short root trunk and an interradicular septum with a minimum height of 5 mm and a thickness of 3 mm.","75 Years",{"count":59,"type":23},30,[26],"The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether an anatomical prefabricated healing abutment (AHA) improves tissue preservation and clinical outcomes following immediate implant placement after tooth extraction in adults. Although immediate implant placement is a well-established treatment for replacing missing teeth, healing can result in changes to the surrounding bone and soft tissues that may affect the esthetic appearance, function, and long-term stability of the implant-supported restoration. This study will compare an anatomical healing abutment, designed to mimic the natural tooth emergence profile and support peri-implant tissues during healing, with a conventional healing abutment. The primary objectives are to determine whether the AHA better preserves soft tissue contours and alveolar bone, improves implant positioning accuracy and tissue stability during healing, and differs from a conventional healing abutment in complications or adverse events. Eligible participants will be adults requiring extraction of a hopeless tooth in the posterior maxilla or mandible who are suitable candidates for immediate implant placement. Following tooth extraction and implant placement, participants will receive either an anatomical prefabricated healing abutment or a conventional healing abutment and will return for scheduled follow-up visits over approximately 12 months to assess healing, implant stability, and changes in the surrounding hard and soft tissues. Researchers will collect clinical measurements, digital intraoral scans, photographs, and radiographic images throughout the study. Additional research imaging will be used to generate three-dimensional models to measure tissue volume changes and implant position accuracy. Specialized software will compare changes between the two groups over time. Safety will be evaluated by monitoring participants for complications, discomfort, inflammation, implant-related problems, and other adverse events throughout follow-up. All procedures will be performed by trained dental professionals using established clinical protocols. The results may improve understanding of how healing abutment design influences tissue preservation after immediate implant placement and help optimize future implant therapy by supporting better functional, esthetic, and long-term outcomes.",[63,29,64,65,66,67,68,69],"Tooth Loss","Clinical Trials","Randomized Controlled Trial","Immediate Dental Implant Placement","Molar Extraction Socket","Maxilla","MANDIBLE",[71,72,73,74,75,76],"3-dimensional imaging","wound healing","healing abutments","immediate implant placement","soft tissue dimensional alterations","implant position accuracy","2026-07-24",{"date":79,"type":42},"2026-07-27",{"date":81,"type":23},"2026-09",{"date":83,"type":23},"2028-09",{"name":85,"class":49},"University of Illinois at Chicago",2,{"id":88,"slug":89,"hasResults":12,"nctId":90,"briefTitle":91,"officialTitle":92,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":93,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":95,"enrollmentInfo":96,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":98,"briefSummary":99,"conditions":100,"keywords":102,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":106,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":107,"startDateStruct":109,"completionDateStruct":111,"leadSponsor":113,"locationsCount":115},"100647871","free-soft-tissue-grafts-fstg-using-autograft-palatal-donor-tissue-vs-xenograft-collagen-matrix-zderm-100647871","NCT07713199","Free Soft Tissue Grafts FSTG) Using Autograft Palatal Donor Tissue vs. Xenograft Collagen Matrix (Zderm™)","Free Soft Tissue Grafts (FSTG) Using Autograft Palatal Donor Tissue vs. Xenograft Collagen Soft Tissue Matrix From Porcine Achilles Tendon (Zderm™)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Male or female patient aged 18 to 89\n* One or more teeth\u002Fdental implants, excluding 3rd molars, that have been identified by dental faculty as requiring augmentation of KT\n* A FSTG is indicated and treatment planned to augment the KT. Coverage of exposed root surfaces is not indicated or intended. Patients needing root coverage surgical procedures re not eligible for enrollment (similar to our past studies, see references 11,12)\n* Female patients who have undergone a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, or menopause, and non-pregnant women of child-bearing potential as eligible.\n* Patients who are nonsmokers or former smokers are eligible. Current smokers may also be included if they smoke \\\u003C10 cigarettes per day (less than or equal to 10 cigarettes per day).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with a known allergy to collagen of animal origins.\n* Patients who will not cooperate with the follow-up schedule.\n* Patients will not be entered who are mentally incompetent, prisoners, or pregnant.\n* Patients who require soft tissue grafting specifically to treat exposed root coverage (gingival recession)\n* Pregnant women or women intending to become pregnant during the study period (as confirmed verbally; an over-the-counter pregnancy test will be provided if pregnancy status is unknown or suspected).\n* Patients who become pregnant during the study will be withdrawn and standard care will be delivered.\n* Patients with active or systemic infections other than periodontitis; a disease entity, condition or therapeutic regimen which decreases probability of soft tissue healing, e.g., poorly controlled diabetes, autoimmune diseases, long-term steroid therapy.\n* Smokers who smoke \\>10 cigarettes per day (more than 10 cigarettes per day)","18 Years","89 Years",{"count":97,"type":23},68,[26],"Participant in this study are asked to participate because they have teeth or dental implants that were identified as having very little gum tissue and would benefit from gum tissue graft surgery. This study has 2 treatment groups that differ only in the material that will be used at the graft site:\n\n* Gum tissue taken from the patient's own palate\n* Commercially available collagen matrix derived from porcine (pig) Achilles tendon (FDA-approved for the surgery done in this study).\n\nBoth materials have been in use in dental practices for many years, but no studies have directly compared the outcomes between palatal tissue and the porcine collagen matrix we will use in this study.\n\nParticipants will be randomized into one of the 2 groups using sealed envelopes (the process is like flipping a coin). All the study visits will take place during regular dental appointments that would be scheduled even if not participating in this research.",[101,29],"Gingival Recession Localized Moderate",[103,104,105],"Tissue graft surgery","Receding gums","Keratinized tissue","2026-07-14",{"date":108,"type":42},"2026-07-20",{"date":110,"type":23},"2026-09-15",{"date":112,"type":23},"2029-01-31",{"name":114,"class":49},"The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio",1,{"id":117,"slug":118,"hasResults":12,"nctId":119,"briefTitle":120,"officialTitle":121,"acronym":122,"eligibilityCriteria":123,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":20,"enrollmentInfo":124,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":126,"briefSummary":127,"conditions":128,"keywords":131,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":143,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":144,"startDateStruct":146,"completionDateStruct":148,"leadSponsor":150,"locationsCount":115},"100646188","standard--and-micro-dose-rhbmp-2-for-implant-stability-marginal-bone-loss-and-postoperative-sequelae-a-double-blind-randomized-controlled-trial-100646188","NCT07696299","Standard- and Micro-Dose rhBMP-2 for Implant Stability, Marginal Bone Loss, and Postoperative Sequelae: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial","Comparative Evaluation of Standard- and Micro-Dose Recombinant Human BMP-2 on Implant Stability, Marginal Bone Loss, and Postoperative Sequelae: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial","SMBMP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged 20 to 55 years requiring a single dental implant for a single tooth missing in the posterior mandible (strictly limited to one implant per patient to prevent clustering effects and intra-subject correlation).\n\nPatients must be systemically healthy or medically well-controlled, categorized as ASA I or ASA II according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification.\n\nSurgical sites must exhibit D2 or D3 bone quality with adequate residual alveolar bone volume (minimum 6 mm width and 10 mm height).\n\nPatients must maintain optimal oral hygiene, suitable for a prosthetically driven implant treatment workflow.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients presenting with uncontrolled systemic conditions (e.g., unmanaged diabetes mellitus, active osteoporosis).\n\nA history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy in the maxillofacial region. Current heavy smoking habits (\\>10 cigarettes per day). Active and untreated periodontal disease. Pregnancy or lactation.",{"count":125,"type":23},60,[26],"This study will compare the effect of standard-dose and micro-dose recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) with a placebo control on dental implant stability in the posterior mandible. Sixty patients requiring a single dental implant will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: standard-dose rhBMP-2, micro-dose rhBMP-2, or sterile saline only. Implant stability will be measured using Resonance Frequency Analysis at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks. Marginal bone loss, peri-implant bone density, ectopic bone formation, and postoperative sequelae including swelling, pain, trismus, and soft tissue healing will also be evaluated during follow-up. The aim is to determine whether micro-dose rhBMP-2 can improve implant stability while reducing postoperative complications compared with the standard dose.",[129,29,130],"Tooth Loss \u002F Rehabilitation","Osseo-Integrated Implants",[132,133,29,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,65],"rhbmp-2","Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2","Implant Stability","Micro-dose","Standard-dose","Osstell","Resonance Frequency Analysis","ISQ","Marginal Bone Loss","Peri-implant Bone Density","Posterior Mandible","2026-07-06",{"date":145,"type":42},"2026-07-10",{"date":147,"type":23},"2026-12",{"date":149,"type":23},"2028-12",{"name":151,"class":49},"University of Baghdad",{"id":153,"slug":154,"hasResults":12,"nctId":155,"briefTitle":156,"officialTitle":157,"acronym":158,"eligibilityCriteria":159,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":161,"enrollmentInfo":162,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":164,"briefSummary":165,"conditions":166,"keywords":169,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":174,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":175,"startDateStruct":176,"completionDateStruct":178,"leadSponsor":180,"locationsCount":115},"100646958","effect-of-systemic-vitamin-d-on-dental-implant-osseointegration-100646958","NCT07684404","Effect of Systemic Vitamin D on Dental Implant Osseointegration","Effect of Systemic Vitamin D on Dental Implant Osseointegration in Patients With Vitamin D Deficiency: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study)","VIDOS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 20-60 with diagnosed vitamin D deficiency (\\\u003C20 ng\u002FmL).\n* Edentulous area in the posterior mandible or maxilla.\n* No history of previous dental implant failure, metabolic bone diseases, or conditions affecting bone healing.\n* Both genders are included\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Severe systemic diseases that could interfere with healing.\n* Patients already on vitamin D or calcium supplements.\n* Smokers or patients with poor oral hygiene practices.\n* Pregnant females",true,"60 Years",{"count":163,"type":23},10,[26],"The primary goal for any oral implantologist is to obtain satisfactory healing and long-term treatment success. Osseointegration is the key to dental implant success8 and is required to achieve direct structural and functional connection between living bone and the surface of a load-bearing artificial implant, is critical for the long-term success of dental implants.\n\nSuccessful dental implant therapy relies on achieving proper osseointegration, which ensures a stable structural and functional bond between the implant surface and surrounding bone. Although dental implants show a high overall success rate of around 95%.",[29,167,168],"Dental Implant Failed","Vitamin D Deficiency",[168,170,171,172],"IMPLANT OSSEOINTEGRATION","Implant Failure","Factors Affect Implant Success","RECRUITING","2026-06-29",{"date":143,"type":42},{"date":177,"type":42},"2025-11-01",{"date":179,"type":23},"2026-11-01",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":182,"slug":183,"hasResults":12,"nctId":184,"briefTitle":185,"officialTitle":186,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":187,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":188,"enrollmentInfo":189,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":191,"briefSummary":192,"conditions":193,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":194,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":195,"startDateStruct":197,"completionDateStruct":199,"leadSponsor":201,"locationsCount":115},"100632328","to-compare-the-two-implant-placement-protocols-to-evaluate-placement-accuracy-and-post-operative-healing-of-the-implant-100632328","NCT07512258","To Compare the Two Implant Placement Protocols to Evaluate Placement Accuracy and Post-operative Healing of the Implant","Assessment of Two Implant Placement Protocols to Evaluate Placement Accuracy and Post-Operative Healing","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* English speaking\n* At least 18 years old\n* Must be a patient of the UAB Dental School\n* Able to read and understand informed consent document\n* Patients presenting with a single edentulous site planned for dental implant placement\n* Presence of periodontally healthy, non-carious neighboring teeth and\u002For healthy restored dental implants on either side of edentulous site planned for dental implant placement.\n* No anticipated need for surgical and\u002For endodontic care at teeth adjacent to the proposed surgical site during the study period.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Non-English speaking\n* Less than 18 years old\n* Smokers\u002Ftobacco users (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday)\n* Patients with systemic pathologies or conditions contraindicating oral surgical procedures or adversely affecting wound healing\n* Absence of adjacent teeth\u002Fimplants on either side of the tooth to be extracted and\u002For edentulous sites where 2 or more adjacent implants are planned.","85 Years",{"count":190,"type":23},40,[26],"The goal of this study is to evaluate two commonly utilized surgical guide protocols to determine dental implant placement accuracy compared to pre-operative computerized planning, post-operative healing and bone levels to 12-months post-placement, and patient assessed post-operative discomfort and healing using a visual acuity scale (VAS).",[29],"2026-06-22",{"date":196,"type":42},"2026-06-25",{"date":198,"type":23},"2026-08",{"date":200,"type":23},"2028-07",{"name":202,"class":49},"University of Alabama at Birmingham",{"id":204,"slug":205,"hasResults":12,"nctId":206,"briefTitle":207,"officialTitle":208,"acronym":209,"eligibilityCriteria":210,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":211,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":213,"briefSummary":214,"conditions":215,"keywords":221,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":230,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":231,"startDateStruct":233,"completionDateStruct":235,"leadSponsor":237,"locationsCount":86},"100641124","do-immediate-digital-workflows-increase-patient-value-100641124","NCT07656597","Do Immediate Digital Workflows Increase Patient Value?","Do Immediate Digital Workflows Increase Patient Value? A Patient-Reported Outcome Measure-Based Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Immediate Versus Delayed Digital Posterior Implant Workflows","ITI PROM RCT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 years or older.\n* Indication for single implant therapy in a posterior premolar or molar extraction site.\n* Good oral hygiene with FMPS ≤20%.\n* Controlled periodontitis according to protocol definition.\n* At least one natural tooth adjacent to the implant site and presence of an antagonist tooth.\n* Ability to comply with study procedures and provide written informed consent.\n* Adequate bone volume for immediate or delayed placement.\n* Extraction site suitable for centrally positioned, prosthetically driven implant placement using straight prosthetic components.\n* Ability to achieve 3-4 mm circumferential implant engagement in native bone along the planned implant axis while maintaining safety distance from vital structures.\n* For molar sites, septal bone classified as Smith \\& Tarnow Type A or Type B, including cases requiring closed sinus floor elevation.\n* Post-extraction socket presenting as a contained or partially contained defect with at least three relatively intact socket walls and no individual socket wall vertical defect \\>5 mm.\n* No facial soft-tissue dehiscence or mucogingival defect associated with buccal bone dehiscence.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* • Known or suspected poor compliance, alcohol abuse, or substance abuse.\n\n  * Systemic or local contraindications to implant surgery.\n  * History of head\u002Fneck radiotherapy or recent malignancy within 5 years.\n  * Use of medications affecting bone metabolism.\n  * Bisphosphonate use within the past 5 years.\n  * Uncontrolled periodontal disease.\n  * Heavy smoking (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday).\n  * Pregnancy or lactation.\n  * Teeth with periapical lesions \\>5 mm in greatest diameter, or sockets demonstrating a large cortical perforation \\>5 mm in greatest dimension on CBCT.",{"count":212,"type":23},50,[26],"This two-center randomized controlled trial will evaluate whether an immediate digital posterior implant workflow provides greater patient-defined value than a delayed digital workflow in adults requiring single posterior implant rehabilitation. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to immediate implant placement at the time of tooth extraction or to delayed implant placement after approximately 16 weeks of healing following extraction and ridge preservation as indicated. The primary endpoint is oral health-related quality of life assessed longitudinally using the OHIP-14 questionnaire and analyzed as the model-based mean score averaged across the active treatment phase from baseline through definitive crown delivery. Secondary outcomes include workflow-related patient experience, chairside time, number of visits, postoperative pain, buccal contour changes based on intraoral scan-derived volumetric analysis, radiographic marginal bone level changes, implant survival, clinical peri-implant parameters, technical complications, esthetic outcomes, accuracy of guided implant placement, and clinician-reported workflow outcomes.",[29,216,66,217,218,219,220],"Implant Therapy","Delayed Implant","Guided Surgery Accuracy","Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO)","Single Tooth Dental Implant",[29,74,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229],"delayed implant placement","digital workflow","guided surgery","patient-reported outcomes","OHIP-14","posterior implant rehabilitation","chairside time","volumetric analysis","2026-06-15",{"date":232,"type":42},"2026-06-18",{"date":234,"type":23},"2026-08-03",{"date":236,"type":23},"2028-10-31",{"name":238,"class":49},"Heinrich-Heine University, Duesseldorf",{"id":240,"slug":241,"hasResults":12,"nctId":242,"briefTitle":243,"officialTitle":244,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":245,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":246,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":248,"briefSummary":249,"conditions":250,"keywords":252,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":253,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":254,"startDateStruct":256,"completionDateStruct":258,"leadSponsor":260,"locationsCount":115},"100638724","influence-of-alveolar-bone-drilling-and-anatomical-position-on-integration-100638724","NCT07589140","Influence of Alveolar Bone Drilling and Anatomical Position on Integration","Influence of Alveolar Bone Drilling and Anatomical Position on the Primary Stability, Osseointegration and Functioning of Immediately Placed Dental Implants","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* ≥ 18 years old.\n* healthy patients without medical contraindications for dental implantation surgery.\n* removable and non-molar teeth indicated for extraction in both jaws\n* healthy soft tissues (bleeding on probing \\\u003C 20%, plaque index \\\u003C 25%);\n* intact alveolar bone walls post-extraction\n* signed informed consent form and permission to use the obtained data for research purposes.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Smokers (≥ 10 cigarettes per day);\n* history of uncontrolled periodontitis;\n* uncontrolled diabetes\u002Falcoholism;\n* use of drugs that may affect healing;\n* persons who, due to health status, cannot be considered capable of reasonably assessing their interests;",{"count":247,"type":23},124,[26],"The goal of this clinical trial is to learn if alveolar bone drilling and anatomical position of an immediately placed dental implant has influence on the primary stability, osseointegration and function. It aims to answer these questions:\n\n* Does absence of alveolar drilling before implant placement give the same result as traditional osteotomy with apical drilling?\n* Is palatinal root position of implant as succesful as central position?\n\nResearchers will compare crestal bone levels and primary stability of the implant after insertion in the groups. Subjects will be assigned to groups, acoording to clinical situation. Study groups:\n\n1. Dental implants will be placed in the extraction socket with an apical osteotomy.\n2. Dental implants will be placed in the extraction socket without performing an osteotomy.\n3. Dental implants will be placed in the centre of the extracted maxillary molar socket.\n4. Dental implants will be placed into the palatal root socket of the extracted maxillary molar.",[29,251,66],"Bone Grafting",[32],"2026-06-01",{"date":255,"type":42},"2026-06-03",{"date":257,"type":23},"2026-07",{"date":259,"type":23},"2028-05",{"name":261,"class":49},"Lithuanian University of Health Sciences",{"id":263,"slug":264,"hasResults":12,"nctId":265,"briefTitle":266,"officialTitle":267,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":268,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":269,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":271,"briefSummary":272,"conditions":273,"keywords":276,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":282,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":283,"startDateStruct":285,"completionDateStruct":286,"leadSponsor":288,"locationsCount":4},"100627156","comparative-evaluation-of-xenograft-alone-and-sticky-bone-in-sinus-lift-with-concurrent-implant-placement-100627156","NCT07444970","Comparative Evaluation of Xenograft Alone and Sticky Bone in Sinus Lift With Concurrent Implant Placement","Comparative Evaluation of Xenograft Alone and Sticky Bone in Sinus Lift With Concurrent Implant Placement: A Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults aged 18 years and older.\n* Patients presenting with residual bone height of less than 5 millimeters in the posterior maxilla requiring sinus floor elevation for dental implant placement.\n* Good oral hygiene status with absence of active periodontal disease.\n* Medically fit patients with no systemic conditions contraindicating oral surgical procedures.\n* Non-smokers.\n* Absence of acute or chronic maxillary sinusitis.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Presence of uncontrolled systemic diseases (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes mellitus or severe cardiovascular diseases).\n* Immunocompromised patients.\n* History of radiation therapy to the head and neck region.\n* History of sinus surgery or sinus pathology that may interfere with sinus floor elevation procedures.\n* Presence of active infection or inflammation at the intended surgical site.\n* Use of medications known to affect bone metabolism or healing, such as bisphosphonates or long-term corticosteroid therapy.",{"count":270,"type":23},18,[26],"Introduction \\& Background:\n\nModern dental implantology offers solutions for patients with edentulism in the maxillary arch, where sinus pneumatization and alveolar ridge atrophy are common conditions. This often requires sinus floor elevation and bone grafting prior to implant placement. Techniques such as the lateral window approach and osteotome-mediated sinus floor elevation aim to achieve sufficient vertical bone height for successful implant placement.\n\nAutogenous bone grafts have long been considered the gold standard; however, their use is associated with limitations including donor site morbidity and graft volume loss, which has encouraged the exploration of alternative grafting materials. Sticky bone is a term used in oral surgery and implantology to describe a cohesive, moldable, and adhesive bone graft material prepared by combining particulate bone graft material (xenograft) with biological additives such as Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) or Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF).\n\nPlatelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), which is used in the present study, is an autologous leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin matrix containing cytokines, platelets, and stem cells. PRF acts as a biodegradable scaffold that promotes microvascularization and guides epithelial cell migration. In addition, PRF may serve as a carrier for regenerative cells and allows sustained release of growth factors over a period ranging from one to four weeks, thereby enhancing the wound healing environment.\n\nObjectives:\n\nThe study aims to assess the clinical efficacy of sticky bone as a bone graft material in sinus lift procedures compared with conventional xenograft materials.\n\nMethods:\n\nA randomized clinical trial will be conducted comparing two groups: one receiving sticky bone with simultaneous implant placement and another receiving xenograft with implant placement. Preoperative assessment will include Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) imaging, followed by postoperative monitoring to evaluate bone height and implant stability.\n\nStudy Design:\n\nPatients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be recruited from the dental clinic. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants after explanation of study procedures, potential risks, and expected benefits. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated into two equal groups using a computer-generated randomization program: Group 1 (Sticky Bone group) and Group 2 (Xenograft group).\n\nStatistical Analysis:\n\nSample size calculation was performed using G\\*Power software version 3.1.9.7. The statistical test family selected was the t-test. Based on data from a previous study, a total of 16 participants were required to achieve a study power of 80% with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05. To compensate for potential dropouts, the total sample size was increased to 18 participants (9 patients per group).",[274,29,275],"Sinus Lifting","Sticky Bone",[277,278,279,280,281],"Dental implants","sticky bone","bone graft","sinus lift","PRF","2026-05-21",{"date":284,"type":42},"2026-05-26",{"date":253,"type":23},{"date":287,"type":23},"2027-04-01",{"name":289,"class":49},"Fayoum University",{"id":291,"slug":292,"hasResults":12,"nctId":293,"briefTitle":294,"officialTitle":294,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":295,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":296,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":298,"briefSummary":299,"conditions":300,"keywords":308,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":317,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":318,"startDateStruct":320,"completionDateStruct":322,"leadSponsor":323,"locationsCount":115},"100637934","assessment-of-soft-tissue-thickness-over-zygomatic-implants-in-atrophied-maxilla-covered-with-buccal-fat-pad-vs-palatal-pedicle-flap-100637934","NCT07574606","Assessment of Soft Tissue Thickness Over Zygomatic Implants in Atrophied Maxilla Covered With Buccal Fat Pad vs. Palatal Pedicle Flap","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPatients ≥18 years with severely atrophic maxilla.\n\n* Acquired maxillary defects resulting from trauma, pathology, or previous surgical resection.\n* Indicated for zygomatic implant-supported fixed prosthesis.\n* Sufficient mouth opening for zygomatic implants placement.\n* Patients willing to sign informed consent and attend follow-ups.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Uncontrolled systemic disease affecting healing (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, etc).\n* Heavy smokers\n* Previous radiotherapy or bisphosphonate therapy.\n* Active sinus or nasal infection.\n* Severe parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism).\n* Pregnant or lactating women.\n* Patients with psychiatric disorders affecting compliance.",{"count":297,"type":23},4,[26],"Background and Rationale The rehabilitation of the severely atrophied maxilla utilizing zygomatic implants is a highly predictable and effective treatment modality. However, managing the peri-implant soft tissue in these complex cases remains a significant clinical challenge. Because zygomatic implants frequently emerge through thin, non-keratinized, and mobile alveolar mucosa rather than thick, attached gingiva, the peri-implant environment is highly susceptible to complications. Inadequate soft tissue thickness can lead to mucosal recession, exposure of the implant collar, plaque accumulation, and ultimately peri-implantitis, which threatens the long-term success of the prosthesis.\n\nTo mitigate these risks and achieve an optimal permucosal seal, soft tissue augmentation is often required. Vascularized soft tissue grafts are preferred in these compromised anatomical sites due to their robust blood supply and enhanced healing capacity. The Buccal Fat Pad (BFP) flap is a well-documented and frequently utilized technique for this purpose; however, its volume can be unpredictable, and it may be unavailable due to prior surgeries or anatomical deficiencies. Therefore, evaluating robust alternatives, such as the Palatal Pedicle Flap (PPF)-which utilizes the thick, keratinized palatal mucosa-is critical for optimizing surgical outcomes.\n\nStudy Design and Methodology This study is structured as a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial utilizing a split-mouth design. The split-mouth approach is strategically chosen to eliminate inter-subject biological and immunological variability, allowing each patient to effectively serve as their own control. Patients presenting with a severely resorbed maxilla requiring bilateral zygomatic implant placement will be enrolled.\n\nFollowing successful implant placement, the right and left maxillary quadrants will be randomized. One side will be assigned to receive soft tissue augmentation using the standard Buccal Fat Pad (BFP) flap, while the contralateral side will be assigned to receive the Palatal Pedicle Flap (PPF).\n\nSurgical Intervention Overview All surgical procedures will be performed under appropriate anesthesia following standard sterile protocols.\n\nFor the BFP side: The buccal fat pad will be accessed via a vestibular mucosal incision, carefully bluntly dissected, mobilized, and advanced over the zygomatic implant collar without tension.\n\nFor the PPF side: A palatal pedicle flap will be meticulously outlined, elevated with its vascular supply intact, rotated, and adapted around the contralateral implant collar.\n\nBoth flaps will be secured using appropriate resorbable sutures to ensure tension-free primary closure and optimal tissue adaptation around the implant abutment interface. Post-operative care will adhere to standard institutional guidelines, including the prescription of appropriate analgesics, antibiotics, and antimicrobial mouth rinses.\n\nClinical Significance By systematically comparing the healing trajectories, tissue stability, and functional outcomes of the BFP and PPF techniques over a 6-month period, this trial aims to provide definitive, evidence-based guidance for soft tissue management in zygomatic implantology. Furthermore, it seeks to validate the PPF as a reliable and predictable reconstructive alternative in clinical scenarios where the buccal fat pad is deemed insufficient or inaccessible.",[301,302,29,303,304,305,306,307],"Atrophic Edentulous Maxilla","Zygomatic Implants","Soft Tissue Augmentation at Dental Implants","Soft Tissue Coverage","Buccal Fat Pad","Palatal Pedicle Flap","Zygomatic Implant Recession",[309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316],"atophic edentulous maxilla","zygomatic implants","dental implants","soft tissue augmentation at dental implant site","soft tissue coverage","buccal fat pad","palatal pedicle flap","zygomatic implant recession","2026-05-18",{"date":319,"type":42},"2026-05-20",{"date":321,"type":42},"2025-11-03",{"date":198,"type":23},{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":325,"slug":326,"hasResults":12,"nctId":327,"briefTitle":328,"officialTitle":329,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":330,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":331,"enrollmentInfo":332,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":334,"briefSummary":335,"conditions":336,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":337,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":338,"startDateStruct":340,"completionDateStruct":342,"leadSponsor":344,"locationsCount":4},"100637511","apically-positioned-flap-vs-rolled-flap-for-soft-tissue-management-during-implant-second-stage-surgery-100637511","NCT07595211","Apically Positioned Flap vs Rolled Flap for Soft Tissue Management During Implant Second-Stage Surgery","Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Management During Second-Stage Surgery With Two Different Flap Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients between the ages of 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 or cerebrovascular accidents within 6 months, or any contraindication for periodontal or implant surgery.\n4. Patients who had, or plan to have, 2 non-adjacent implants of the same system placed under a two-stage implant protocol.\n5. The diameter discrepancy of the 2 target implants must be less than 1 mm.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Current smokers, or 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 medication affecting wound healing.\n6. Poor plaque control with plaque score \\> 20%\n7. Active\u002Funtreated odontogenic and periodontal infections\n8. Implants placed, or planned to be placed, with one-stage implant protocol.\n9. The diameter discrepancy of the 2 target implants is equal to or greater than 1 mm (≥ 1 mm).\n10. Implants showing signs of early peri-implant bone loss or infection.\n11. Severe loss of keratinized tissue (\\> 50%) at the implant site\n12. Non-English speaking individuals for studies involving informed consent.","80 Years",{"count":333,"type":23},16,[26],"Patients are being asked to consider joining a research study that looks at two different ways dentists uncover dental implants during a small gum surgery. To join this study, Patients must have two dental implants that are ready to be uncovered. Both uncovering methods used in this research are normal, safe procedures that dentists already use every day. The purpose of this study is to learn which method helps the gums heal better, stay thicker, and look more natural over time.\n\nIf patients decide to participate, the dentist will use one method on one implant and the other method on the second implant so we can compare how each implant heals. The study lasts about one year and includes the uncovering surgery plus scheduled follow-up visits. At these visits, the dentist will gently measure your gums, take pictures, take routine dental X-rays, and use a small camera scanner to check how the gum tissue changes. Patients will also be asked to rate any pain or swelling after surgery.\n\nPatients may have soreness, swelling, or minor bleeding-these are the same risks patients would have during normal implant care. Patients may or may not personally benefit, but the extra monitoring may help us track the healing closely, and patients' participation can help dentists improve care for future patients.\n\nPatients can receive regular implant treatment without joining the study. The goal of this summary is to help you think about the pros and cons and decide what feels right for patients.",[29],"2026-05-12",{"date":339,"type":42},"2026-05-19",{"date":341,"type":23},"2026-06-30",{"date":343,"type":23},"2028-06-30",{"name":345,"class":49},"Ohio State University",{"id":347,"slug":348,"hasResults":12,"nctId":349,"briefTitle":350,"officialTitle":351,"acronym":224,"eligibilityCriteria":352,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":353,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":354,"briefSummary":355,"conditions":356,"keywords":359,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":366,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":367,"startDateStruct":369,"completionDateStruct":370,"leadSponsor":372,"locationsCount":115},"100635310","evaluation-of-zygomatic-implant-placement-accuracy-using-fully-metallic-vs-resin-based-static-surgical-guides-in-severely-atrophic-maxilla-100635310","NCT07551024","Evaluation of Zygomatic Implant Placement Accuracy Using Fully Metallic vs Resin-based Static Surgical Guides in Severely Atrophic Maxilla","Evaluation of Zygomatic Implant Placement Accuracy Using Fully Metallic vs Resin-based Surgical Guides in Severely Atrophic Maxilla.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients ≥18 years with severely atrophic maxilla.\n* Acquired maxillary defects resulting from trauma, pathology, or previous surgical resection.\n* Indicated for zygomatic implant-supported fixed prosthesis.\n* Sufficient mouth opening for zygomatic implants placement.\n* Patients willing to sign informed consent and attend follow-ups.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Uncontrolled systemic disease affecting healing (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, etc).\n* Heavy smokers\n* Previous radiotherapy or bisphosphonate therapy.\n* Active sinus or nasal infection.\n* Severe parafunctional habits (e.g., bruxism).\n* Pregnant or lactating women.\n* Patients with psychiatric disorders affecting compliance.",{"count":297,"type":23},[26],"Some patients lose a large amount of bone in the upper jaw. When this happens, it can be difficult to place regular dental implants. In these cases, special implants called zygomatic implants can be used. These implants are longer than normal implants and are fixed in the cheekbone, which usually has enough bone to support them. They can help support fixed teeth for patients with severe bone loss in the upper jaw.\n\nPlacing zygomatic implants requires careful planning and high accuracy. To help guide the surgeon during the operation, a surgical guide can be used. A surgical guide is a custom-made device that helps the surgeon place the implant in the planned position.\n\nSurgical guides can be made from different materials. The most common type is made from resin (a strong plastic material) using 3D printing. Recently, fully metallic surgical guides have been developed. These metal guides may be stronger and more stable during surgery, but it is not yet clear if they improve the accuracy of implant placement.\n\nThe purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of metal surgical guides and resin surgical guides when placing zygomatic implants in patients with severe bone loss in the upper jaw.\n\nPatients included in the study will undergo a clinical examination and a CT scan before surgery to plan the implant positions. During the surgery, each patient will receive zygomatic implants on both sides of the upper jaw. On one side, the implants will be placed using a metal surgical guide, and on the other side, they will be placed using a resin surgical guide. This allows the two types of guides to be compared in the same patient.\n\nAfter the surgery, another CT scan will be taken to check the final position of the implants. The planned implant position will be compared with the actual position after surgery to measure the accuracy of placement.\n\nThe results of this study will help determine whether metallic surgical guides or resin surgical guides provide better accuracy when placing zygomatic implants.\n\nParticipation in this study is voluntary. All patients will receive full information about the study and will sign a consent form before participating.",[301,302,357,29,358],"Guided Surgery","Accuracy of Dental Implant Placement",[360,361,362,363,364,365],"Zygomatic implants","Severely atrophic maxilla","Surgical guides","Dental implant placement accuracy","Metal surgical guide","Resin surgical guide","2026-05-04",{"date":368,"type":42},"2026-05-07",{"date":321,"type":42},{"date":371,"type":23},"2026-06",{"name":48,"class":49},{"id":374,"slug":375,"hasResults":12,"nctId":376,"briefTitle":377,"officialTitle":378,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":379,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":380,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":382,"briefSummary":383,"conditions":384,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":385,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":386,"startDateStruct":388,"completionDateStruct":390,"leadSponsor":392,"locationsCount":115},"100522765","investigating-implant-surface-effect-on-osseointegration-nga-vs-modsla-100522765","NCT06086873","Investigating Implant Surface Effect on Osseointegration: NGA vs. ModSLA","A Randomised Clinical Trial Investigating Effect of Implant Surface Characteristic on Crestal Marginal Bone Loss, Inflammatory Response and Aesthetic Outcomes: Novel Gradient Anodized and Sandblasted Large-grit Acid-etched Implant Surfaces","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age: over 18 years old,\n* Gender: male and female.\n* Patient must be able and willing to follow study procedures and instructions and have capacity to provide informed consent.\n* Patient must require tooth extraction of a maxillary first premolar or single-rooted anterior tooth as the result of caries, endodontic failure or trauma\n* The extraction site must have adjacent teeth present.\n* Adjacent teeth with no evidence of interdental bone loss\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Systemic disease that can interfere with dental implant therapy (e.g. uncontrolled diabetes)\n* 2 adjacent teeth requiring extraction\n* Greater than one wall of the socket missing - assessed at time of extraction\n* Any contraindications for oral surgical procedures\n* Any known systemic disease affecting bone metabolism (e.g. Cushing's syndrome, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes type I and uncontrolled diabetes type II), systemic infections or recent surgical procedures within 30 days of study initiation;\n* Chronic treatment (i.e., 2 weeks or more) with any medication known to affect oral status (e.g., phenytoin, dihydropyridine, calcium antagonists and cyclosporine) or bone metabolism (e.g. bisphosphonates, hormone replacement therapy, immunosuppressants) within 1 month before baseline visit;\n* HIV or viral hepatitis;\n* Physical handicaps that would interfere with the ability to perform adequate oral hygiene;\n* History of local irradiation therapy in the head-neck region\n* Mucosal diseases (e.g. erosive lichen planus)\n* Current untreated periodontitis or gingivitis. In particular probing depths of \\>4mm on one of the teeth immediately adjacent to the extraction site\n* Untreated acute endodontic lesions\n* Current smokers (have smoked within 3 months of study onset)\n* Any known systemic disease affecting bone metabolism (e.g. Cushing's syndrome, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes type I and uncontrolled diabetes type II), systemic infections or recent surgical procedures within 30 days of study initiation;\n* Self-reported alcoholism or chronic drug abuse;\n* Patients suffering from a known psychological disorder or with limited mental capacity or language skills such that study information could not be understood,\n* Non-compliant patients, vulnerable individuals or those unable to understand written or verbal communication and give consent.\n* Pregnant or breastfeeding patients\n* Involvement in current research or recent involvement in any research prior to recruitment\n* Full-mouth bleeding (BOP) and plaque (PI) scores \\>30% or sites with periodontal pocket depth \\>5 mm at the completion of the pre-treatment phase.",{"count":381,"type":23},39,[26],"This study aims to characterise the stability of crestal bone levels one year after loading, the associated aesthetic outcomes, immunological response, prosthodontic outcomes as well as overall patient reported outcome measures for modSLA (SLActive, Institut Straumann AG, Switzerland) and NGA (TiUltraNP, Nobel Biocare AG, Switzerland) dental implants.",[29],"2026-04-20",{"date":387,"type":42},"2026-04-22",{"date":389,"type":42},"2023-09-05",{"date":391,"type":23},"2027-03-31",{"name":393,"class":49},"Barts & The London NHS Trust",{"id":395,"slug":396,"hasResults":12,"nctId":397,"briefTitle":398,"officialTitle":399,"acronym":400,"eligibilityCriteria":401,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":402,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":404,"briefSummary":405,"conditions":406,"keywords":409,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":413,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":414,"startDateStruct":416,"completionDateStruct":418,"leadSponsor":420,"locationsCount":115},"100633040","evaluation-of-guided-tissue-regeneration-with-autogenous-bone-chips-and-cgf-during-implant-placement-100633040","NCT07521514","Evaluation of Guided Tissue Regeneration With Autogenous Bone Chips and CGF During Implant Placement","Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Guided Tissue Regeneration Using Autogenous Bone Chips and Concentrated Growth Factors Membranes With Simultaneous Implant Placement. (Case Series)","CGF","inclusion 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(Chrcanovic et al., 2014).\n\nexclusion criteria: 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\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(Chrcanovic et al., 2014).",{"count":403,"type":23},8,[26],"CGF membranes will be prepared using a swing-lock centrifuge. A full-thickness mucoperiosteal flap will be elevated in a narrow alveolar ridge. Implants will be inserted. Autologous bone chips will be harvested via bone scraping and used for augmentation, CGF membranes will be placed over the grafted area. Suturing of the mucoperiosteal flap. Radiographic evaluation of the bone density and tissue thickness will be performed by CBCT preoperatively, immediate postoperative and after the procedure by 4 months. Clinical evaluation of the tissue thickness using periodontal probe preoperatively, immediate postoperatively and after the procedure by 4 months",[407,408,29],"Alveolar Bone Loss","Alveolar Ridge Augmentation",[400,410,411,32,412],"autogenous bone graft","gingival biotype","guided tissue regeneration","2026-04-08",{"date":415,"type":42},"2026-04-13",{"date":417,"type":23},"2026-04-16",{"date":419,"type":23},"2026-10",{"name":421,"class":49},"Cairo University",{"id":423,"slug":424,"hasResults":12,"nctId":425,"briefTitle":426,"officialTitle":427,"acronym":428,"eligibilityCriteria":429,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":430,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":432,"briefSummary":433,"conditions":434,"keywords":436,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":445,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":446,"startDateStruct":447,"completionDateStruct":449,"leadSponsor":451,"locationsCount":297},"100632817","clinical-safety-and-effectiveness-of-the-straumann-dynamic-navigation-system-falcon-100632817","NCT07518615","Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of the Straumann Dynamic Navigation System Falcon","Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Straumann Dynamic Navigation System (Falcon): a Prospective Multicenter and Multinational Clinical Investigation","Falcon","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients of either sex, ≥ 18 years old.\n* Partially edentulous patients requiring at least one dental implant.\n* Suitable clinical situation as judged by the investigator (e.g., satisfactory soft and hard tissue conditions and occlusion).\n* Ability to understand and sign the informed consent form.\n* Willingness and ability to participate in the planned study program.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Fully edentulous patients.\n* Patients without at least 3 adjacent teeth for accurate positioning of the digital tray, and another tooth for accuracy check (minimum 30 mm distance from marker position).\n* Contraindications for dental implant treatment as per the implant Instructions for Use.\n* Contraindications listed in the Instructions for Use of the Straumann Falcon system.\n* Pregnant women or women planning pregnancy during study participation.",{"count":431,"type":23},75,[26],"The Falcon Study is a prospective, multicenter, multinational clinical investigation evaluating the Straumann® Dynamic Navigation System (Falcon) for dental implant placement. The Falcon system is a real-time dynamic navigation device that helps clinicians visualize the position of dental instruments during surgery.\n\nThe purpose of the study is to assess whether Falcon enables safe and precise implant placement in partially edentulous patients compared to benchmarks from the literature for freehand implant placement. The study will enroll approximately 75 adult patients across four European centers (Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium). Each patient will undergo preoperative planning, implant surgery with the Falcon system, and a postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan to measure implant placement accuracy.\n\nThe main outcomes are (1) angular deviation between planned and actual implant position, and (2) safety as measured by adverse device effects. Results will provide clinical evidence to support regulatory clearance and the safe adoption of the Falcon system in routine practice.",[435,63,29],"Partially Edentulous Jaw",[29,437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444],"Dynamic Navigation","Computer-Assisted Surgery","Falcon System","Straumann","CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography)","Partially Edentulous Patients","Accuracy of Implant Placement","Post-Market Clinical Investigation","2026-04-02",{"date":413,"type":42},{"date":448,"type":42},"2026-01-22",{"date":450,"type":23},"2027-04",{"name":452,"class":453},"Institut Straumann AG","INDUSTRY",{"id":455,"slug":456,"hasResults":12,"nctId":457,"briefTitle":458,"officialTitle":459,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":460,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":461,"enrollmentInfo":462,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":464,"briefSummary":465,"conditions":466,"keywords":468,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":473,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":474,"startDateStruct":476,"completionDateStruct":477,"leadSponsor":479,"locationsCount":115},"100631199","effect-of-local-application-of-1-metformin-gel-on-implant-stability-and-peri-implant-bone-density-a-randomized-controlled-study-100631199","NCT07497568","Effect of Local Application of 1% Metformin Gel on Implant Stability and Peri-implant Bone Density: A Randomized Controlled Study","Effect of Local Application of 1% Metformin Gel on Implant Stability and Peri-implant Bone Density: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* 1\\) Patients age at least 18 years old. 2) Patient with partial edentulous teeth bounded areas that need dental implant for teeth replacement.\n\n  3\\) Adequate bone volume for implant placement (at least 5 mm width - 10 mm height).\n\n  4\\) Ability to tolerate conventional surgical and restorative procedures. 5) Patients who are willing to comply the study and give their consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n\\- 1) Active infection or inflammation in the implant zone. 2) Presence of any uncontrolled systemic diseases. 3) Patient with history of chemotherapy or radiotherapy. 4) Patient had undergone bone grafting and soft tissue procedures prior to implant surgery.\n\n5\\) Patient had undergone tooth extraction at the implant site less than 6 months prior to implant surgery.","70 Years",{"count":463,"type":23},34,[26],"This randomized controlled clinical study aims to evaluate the effect of local application of 1% metformin gel on implant stability and peri-implant bone density. Patients requiring dental implants will be randomly allocated into two groups: a control group and a test group receiving metformin gel. Implant stability will be assessed using resonance frequency analysis, and bone density will be evaluated using CBCT imaging. The outcomes will be compared over a follow-up period to determine the effectiveness of metformin in enhancing osseointegration",[29,467],"Stability",[32,469,470,471,472],"CBCT","Metformin","bone density","RFA","2026-03-23",{"date":475,"type":42},"2026-03-27",{"date":177,"type":42},{"date":478,"type":23},"2027-06-01",{"name":151,"class":49},{"id":481,"slug":482,"hasResults":12,"nctId":483,"briefTitle":484,"officialTitle":485,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":486,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":487,"enrollmentInfo":488,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":490,"briefSummary":491,"conditions":492,"keywords":493,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":499,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":500,"startDateStruct":502,"completionDateStruct":504,"leadSponsor":506,"locationsCount":115},"100618585","hard-tissue-augmentation-with-or-without-connective-tissue-graft-in-immediate-esthetic-implants-100618585","NCT07333534","Hard Tissue Augmentation With or Without Connective Tissue Graft in Immediate Esthetic Implants","Effectiveness of Hard Tissue Augmentation With or Without Connective Tissue Graft Following Immediate Dental Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Randomized Controlled Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with a non-restorable tooth or a remaining root without signs of acute infection in the maxillary esthetic zone.\n* The failing tooth is an incisor, canine or first bicuspid in the maxilla bounded by natural sound teeth.\n* Sufficient bone (\\>4 mm) apically and palatally to allow for proper implant positioning with sufficient primary stability (≥35 N cm).\n* Sufficient mesial-distal and interocclusal space for placement of the implant and definitive restoration.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with systemic conditions affecting bone healing (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes).\n* Teeth with current acute periapical infection.\n* Dehiscence of the labial (facial) bone plate after extraction.\n* Signs of uncontrolled periodontal disease.\n* Heavy smokers and vulnerable groups (pregnant females and decision-impaired individuals).\n* History of head and neck radiation therapy.","65 Years",{"count":489,"type":23},28,[26],"This randomized controlled study is aimed to evaluate the esthetic, clinical, and radiographic outcomes following the placement of immediate single-tooth implant with hard and soft tissue augmentation.\n\nSubjects will randomly assigned to one of two groups:\n\n* Group A (control group) receiving an immediate single-tooth implant in the esthetic zone with bone augmentation only.\n* Group B (study group) receiving an immediate single-tooth implant in the esthetic zone with bone augmentation and connective tissue graft (CTG).\n\nThe main questions it aims to answer is:\n\nIs there is a significant difference in the esthetic outcome between bone augmentation alone and bone augmentation combined with connective tissue graft after immediate dental implant in the esthetic zone?",[29],[494,495,496,497,498],"immediate implant","maxillary esthetic zone","CTG","jumping gap","bone augmentation","2026-03-12",{"date":501,"type":42},"2026-03-13",{"date":503,"type":42},"2025-12-20",{"date":505,"type":23},"2026-07-01",{"name":151,"class":49},{"id":508,"slug":509,"hasResults":12,"nctId":510,"briefTitle":511,"officialTitle":512,"acronym":513,"eligibilityCriteria":514,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":515,"enrollmentInfo":516,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":518,"briefSummary":519,"conditions":520,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":38,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":523,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":524,"startDateStruct":526,"completionDateStruct":528,"leadSponsor":530,"locationsCount":115},"100628238","artificial-intelligence-guided-versus-manual-cbct-planning-for-immediate-implant-placement-100628238","NCT07459036","Artificial Intelligence-Guided Versus Manual CBCT Planning for Immediate Implant Placement","Artificial Intelligence-Guided Versus Manual CBCT Planning for Immediate Implant Placement in Molar Extraction Sites: A Randomized Controlled Trial","AI","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adults≥18 years are able to provide informed consent. Indicated for the extraction of a molar tooth (maxillary or mandibular) with planned implant-supported rehabilitation.\n* Candidate for immediate implant placement attempt based on preoperative clinical evaluation and CBCT availability.\n* Preoperative CBCT will be acquired using the study imaging protocol within a defined window (e.g., ≤4 weeks before surgery).\n* Adequate oral hygiene and periodontal condition compatible with implant surgery (e.g., treated\u002Fstable periodontal status per clinician judgement).\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Pregnancy or breastfeeding (due to imaging\u002Fsurgical considerations).\n* Uncontrolled systemic disease or medical contraindication to oral surgery\u002Fimplant placement (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, immunosuppression as judged by clinician).\n* History of head and neck radiotherapy in the implant region. Use of medications associated with compromised bone healing where immediate implant placement is not advised (e.g., high-dose antiresorptives\u002FIV bisphosphonates; you can specify per your clinic policy).\n* Acute uncontrolled infection at the site requiring staged management (e.g., spreading cellulitis\u002Fabscess) or other condition precluding immediate placement per surgeon judgement.\n* Need for simultaneous major augmentation that precludes immediate implant placement (e.g., extensive ridge reconstruction planned at the same surgery rather than socket-level grafting).\n* Inadequate CBCT quality for segmentation\u002Fmeasurement (motion artifacts, incomplete field of view, or metal artifact obscuring the septum).","99 Years",{"count":517,"type":23},80,[26],"This study evaluates whether artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans can support clinical decision-making for immediate dental implant placement in molar extraction sites.\n\nWhen a molar tooth is removed, placing a dental implant immediately may reduce treatment time and preserve surrounding bone. However, immediate implant placement is not always possible and depends on the anatomy of the extraction socket, particularly the interradicular septum (the bone between the roots). CBCT imaging is routinely used to assess this anatomy before surgery. Traditionally, radiologists manually evaluate these scans. Recently, AI-based tools have been developed to automatically analyze CBCT images.\n\nIn this randomized controlled trial, patients requiring molar extraction and potential immediate implant placement will be assigned to one of two planning approaches: AI-guided CBCT assessment or conventional manual CBCT assessment. The operating surgeon will use the assigned planning report to guide treatment decisions.\n\nThe primary outcome of the study is the feasibility of immediate implant placement, defined as successful implant placement with achievement of primary stability during surgery. Secondary outcomes include surgical time, need for changes to the treatment plan, and implant stability measurements.\n\nThe goal of this study is to determine whether AI-assisted CBCT analysis performs similarly to, or improves upon, conventional manual radiologic assessment in supporting safe and effective immediate implant placement.",[29,521,522],"Immediate Implant","Guided Bone Regeneration","2026-03-06",{"date":525,"type":42},"2026-03-09",{"date":527,"type":23},"2026-03-03",{"date":529,"type":23},"2026-05-02",{"name":531,"class":49},"Shalash Dental education",{"id":533,"slug":534,"hasResults":12,"nctId":535,"briefTitle":536,"officialTitle":537,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":538,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":20,"maxAge":461,"enrollmentInfo":539,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":540,"briefSummary":541,"conditions":542,"keywords":544,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":547,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":548,"startDateStruct":550,"completionDateStruct":552,"leadSponsor":554,"locationsCount":86},"100612632","occlusion-and-dis-occlusion-time-in-mandibular-overdentures-supported-by-conventional-versus-mini--dental-implants-100612632","NCT07256106","Occlusion and Dis-Occlusion Time in Mandibular Overdentures Supported by Conventional Versus Mini- Dental Implants","Evaluation of The Occlusion and Dis-Occlusion Time in Mandibular Single Overdentures Supported by Conventional Versus Mini- Dental Implants; A Parallel Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients with completely edentulous mandibular ridges and fully dentate or partially dentate maxillary arch restored with fixed restoration,\n\n  * enough inter-arch space to allow for prosthetic rehabilitation with lower implant-retained overdentures\n  * good oral hygiene and motivation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* The excluded patients will be patients with major systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration as uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, pregnancy, patients under bisphosphonate treatment.",{"count":489,"type":23},[26],"The aim of the study will be comparing between the occlusion and disocclusion time in mandibular single overdenture supported with immediately loaded two conventional implants versus immediately loaded four mini-implants.\n\nResearch question Is there a difference in occlusion and disocclusion time between two mandibular single dentures, one supported by immediately loaded two conventional implants and the second one supported by immediately loaded four mini-implants? Primary outcome: occlusion and disocclusion time Secondary outcome: Kapur index The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between both treatment modalities on occlusion and disocclusion time.",[29,543],"Edentulous Mouth",[545,546],"occlusion time","disocclusion time","2025-12-28",{"date":549,"type":42},"2025-12-30",{"date":551,"type":42},"2025-11-29",{"date":553,"type":23},"2026-04-15",{"name":555,"class":49},"Ain Shams University",{"id":557,"slug":558,"hasResults":12,"nctId":559,"briefTitle":560,"officialTitle":561,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":562,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":515,"enrollmentInfo":563,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":565,"briefSummary":566,"conditions":567,"keywords":569,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":571,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":572,"startDateStruct":574,"completionDateStruct":576,"leadSponsor":578,"locationsCount":115},"100435779","ridge-augmentation-using-allograft-particles-hydrated-with-or-without-recombinant-human-platelet-derived-growth-factor-100435779","NCT04954664","Ridge Augmentation Using Allograft Particles Hydrated With or Without Recombinant Human Platelet-Derived Growth Factor","Lateral Ridge Augmentation Using Allograft Bone Particles Hydrated With or Without Recombinant Human Platelet-Derived Growth Factor: A Clinical and Histological Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* English speaking\n* At least 18 years old\n* Must be a patient of the UAB Dental School\n* Able to read and understand informed consent document\n* Need for implants to replace missing tooth or teeth in at least one quadrant of the mouth.\n* Insufficient alveolar ridge width for endosseous implant placement defined as 5mm or less as determined by bone sounding and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Non-English speaking\n* Less than 18 years old\n* Smokers\u002Ftobacco users (\\>10 cigarettes\u002Fday)\n* Patients with systemic pathologies or conditions contraindicating oral surgical procedures or adversely affecting wound healing\n* Patient is a poor compliance risk (i.e., poor oral hygiene, history of alcohol or drug abuse)\n* Vertical loss of bone at edentulous ridge.",{"count":564,"type":23},44,[26],"This study will compare two techniques to achieve increase in ridge dimensions as a preparation for dental implants using a resorbable barrier membrane and bone particulate allogenic graft hydrated with saline or a growth factor called Recombinant Human Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (rhPDGF).",[29,568],"Bone Loss",[570,277],"New bone","2025-12-19",{"date":573,"type":42},"2025-12-29",{"date":575,"type":42},"2021-08-11",{"date":577,"type":23},"2027-12",{"name":202,"class":49},{"id":580,"slug":581,"hasResults":12,"nctId":582,"briefTitle":583,"officialTitle":584,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":585,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":586,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":587,"briefSummary":589,"conditions":590,"keywords":591,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":594,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":595,"startDateStruct":597,"completionDateStruct":599,"leadSponsor":601,"locationsCount":115},"100614489","phase-4-clinical-performance-of-nobel-n1-system-100614489","NCT07280260","Clinical Performance of Nobel N1 System","Effects of Early Loading Protocol on the Survival of the Nobel N1 Implant System: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Males and females, age 18 or older\n\n  * Can provide an Informed Consent in English.\n  * Absence of a single posterior tooth in mandible or maxilla with presence of natural neighboring teeth (except for second molar which only requires presence of first molar)\n  * Presence of antagonist teeth\n  * Possibility and will for an immediate restoration.\n  * Systemic health recorded as an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I or II\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* · Unavailability to attend the follow-up visits.\n\n  * A systemic contraindication for oral surgical procedures; ASA III or IV.\n  * Pregnancy or nursing on screening or before the surgical procedure.\n  * Diseases that could alter healing or bone metabolism (uncontrolled diabetes, diagnostic osteoporosis, etc.),\n  * Taking medications that are altering healing or bone metabolism (bisphosphonates, long-time corticosteroids intake, RANK inhibitors, etc.)\n  * Alcohol or drug abuse.\n  * Current heavy smoking behavior (≥10 cigarettes\u002Fday).\n  * Radiation therapy to the head or neck region.\n  * Pathology in the implant planned sites that prevent implant placement.\n  * Current diagnosis of Diabetes, which is uncontrolled (\\>7 HbA1C).\n  * Need for sinus lift or vertical bone augmentation\n  * Previously failed implant site",{"count":212,"type":23},[588],"PHASE4","The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether N1 dental implants are successful when a final crown is placed on them at 6 weeks from implant placement surgery.",[63,29],[592,593,277],"Tooth loss","Edentulous","2025-12-11",{"date":596,"type":42},"2025-12-12",{"date":598,"type":23},"2025-12-15",{"date":600,"type":23},"2028-01-30",{"name":602,"class":49},"Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans",{"id":604,"slug":605,"hasResults":12,"nctId":606,"briefTitle":607,"officialTitle":608,"acronym":609,"eligibilityCriteria":610,"healthyVolunteers":160,"sex":18,"minAge":611,"maxAge":161,"enrollmentInfo":612,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":613,"briefSummary":614,"conditions":615,"keywords":618,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":623,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":624,"startDateStruct":626,"completionDateStruct":628,"leadSponsor":630,"locationsCount":115},"100615340","phase-4-comparing-dynamic-navigation-to-static-navigation-in-the-implant-placement-100615340","NCT07291336","Comparing Dynamic Navigation to Static Navigation in the Implant Placement","Accuracy Assessment of Dynamic Vs. Static Navigation Implant Placement Protocols (Randomized Controlled Trial)","RCT","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Healthy patients at least 22 years old.\n\n  * At least one missing tooth to be restored using an implant in the upper jaw from the maxillary right 2nd premolar to the maxillary left 2nd premolar.\n  * At least six residual teeth in the affected jaw (5).\n  * Minimum of 5 mm available bone.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Medical condition or medication that would impair bone healing.\n\n  * Poor oral hygiene\n  * Inadequate bone width or height that may need bone augmentation. 5\n  * Alcohol users.\n  * Smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day.\n  * History of head and neck radiotherapy.\n  * Pregnant females.\n  * Uncontrolled hypertensive or diabetic patient.\n  * Vulnerable group; prisoners, pregnant women, orphans…etc","22 Years",{"count":22,"type":23},[588],"Implant placement is preplanned by taking xrays and impressions for the mouth one group a guide is fabricated and used to guide the implant drilling all through to the implant placement the other group, no guide is fabricated, but the implant is placed by dynamic navigation through looking in a screen and checking where the implant is fully placed",[616,29,617],"Healthy Adults","Accuracy",[619,620,621,617,622],"dynamic navigation","static navigation","guide","delayed implant","2025-12-05",{"date":625,"type":42},"2025-12-18",{"date":627,"type":42},"2022-10-01",{"date":629,"type":23},"2026-01",{"name":555,"class":49},{"id":632,"slug":633,"hasResults":12,"nctId":634,"briefTitle":635,"officialTitle":635,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":636,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":637,"targetDuration":639,"studyType":640,"phases":4,"briefSummary":641,"conditions":642,"keywords":643,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":647,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":648,"startDateStruct":650,"completionDateStruct":652,"leadSponsor":653,"locationsCount":115},"100286008","assessing-current-clinical-concepts-in-dental-practice-100286008","NCT03003052","Assessing Current Clinical Concepts in Dental Practice","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. be a patient at The Campbell Clinic\n2. be planning to undergo or have undergone specialist dental treatment, usually involved dental implants\n3. be able to read and understand Patient Information Sheet\n4. Have signed informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. concern that patient has not understood patient information sheet (e.g. due to language \u002Finterpretation issues)\n2. not willing to sign consent form\n3. any medical condition\u002Fmedication that might compromise implant success",{"count":638,"type":23},300,"4 Years","OBSERVATIONAL","This purpose of this database is to collect, store and use appropriately derived data from routine patient care in a specialist dental practice. Comprehensive observational data will be gathered, systematically organised and be continuously updated. This data will be used to evaluate treatment outcomes and identify areas for improvement. This will contribute to the existing evidence base to validate new and current clinical concepts in dentistry. Patient consent will be sought for this, and all data extracted from patient notes will be stored and used anonymously. Use of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) -14 questionnaire pre and post treatment will be used to assess patient satisfaction with outcomes.",[29],[311,644,645,646],"edentulous","dental hygiene","evidence-based dentistry","2025-11-27",{"date":649,"type":42},"2025-12-04",{"date":651,"type":4},"2017-01",{"date":257,"type":23},{"name":654,"class":453},"The Campbell Clinic, UK",{"id":656,"slug":657,"hasResults":12,"nctId":658,"briefTitle":659,"officialTitle":660,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":661,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":662,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":663,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":665,"briefSummary":666,"conditions":667,"keywords":671,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":673,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":674,"startDateStruct":676,"completionDateStruct":678,"leadSponsor":680,"locationsCount":115},"100537323","influence-of-timing-of-implant-placement-on-early-healing-molecular-events-100537323","NCT06276335","Influence of Timing of Implant Placement on Early Healing Molecular Events","Influence of Timing of Implant Placement on Early Healing Molecular Events: A Two-centre, Parallel Group, Pilot Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥25 years old\n* Good\u002Fcontrolled medical and psychological health\n* Good oral hygiene (FMPS≤20%)\n* Presence of a tooth in the aesthetic region (from incisor to second premolar) in need of extraction and further oral rehabilitation with a single dental implant.\n* For the IP group, the extraction socket should fulfil the following parameters, as described by the 5th ITI consensus \\[46\\]: intact socket wall; facial bone wall ≥1mm in thickness; no acute infection at the site; availability of bone apical and palatal to the socket to provide primary stability.\n* At least one neighbouring natural tooth.\n* A functional occlusion with a minimum of four occlusal units (i.e., pairs of occluding posterior teeth).\n* Willingness to read and sign a copy of the Informed Consent Form (ICF) after reading the Patient Information Sheet (PIS), and after the nature of the study has been fully explained and potential questions fully answered.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any known systemic disease severely affecting bone metabolism (e.g., Cushing's syndrome, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis or diabetes type I and uncontrolled diabetes type II).\n* Self-reported HIV or viral hepatitis.\n* Self-reported alcoholism or chronic drug abuse.\n* Smokers (including current smokers or former smokers who had quit for \\\u003C 3 months); patients reporting use of vape\u002Fe-cigarettes will also be excluded.\n* Self-reported pregnancy or lactation (this criterion is due to oral tissue changes related to pregnancy and nursing, which can affect interpretation of study results).\n* Chronic treatment (i.e., 2 weeks or more) with any medication known to affect oral status or bone metabolism (e.g., bisphosphonates, hormone replacement therapy, immunosuppressants) within 1 month before baseline visit.\n* Chronic treatment with anticoagulants (including Aspirin), corticosteroids, immunosuppressants or other medications that may influence blood coagulation\u002Fcount.\n* Antibiotic or anti-inflammatory therapy during the month preceding the baseline exam.\n* Untreated caries lesions and untreated\u002Funcontrolled periodontal disease; If patients require periodontal treatment (non-surgical and\u002For surgical), this will be arranged outside the study protocol and completed prior to enrolment;\n* Inadequate keratinized tissue width (\\\u003C2 mm) in the mid-buccal aspect of the area to be treated in the study.\n* Physical handicaps that would interfere with the ability to perform adequate oral hygiene in the area of implant placement.\n* Patients requiring maxillary sinus lift surgery before implant placement.\n* Self-reported bruxism.\n* Patients not willing to receive animal-derived biomaterials for GBR.\n* Patients suffering from a known psychological disorder or with limited mental capacity or language skills such that study information could not be understood, informed consent could not be obtained, or simple instructions could not be followed.\n* Other severe acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition or laboratory abnormality that may increase the risk associated with trial participation or may interfere with the interpretation of trial results and, in the judgement of the investigator, would make the subject inappropriate for entry into this trial.","25 Years",{"count":664,"type":23},24,[26],"Dental implants have been on the market for several years and they are routinely used to replace single\u002Fmultiple missing teeth with a high success rate. However, there is still a limited number of studies comparing the influence of timing of implant placement on wound healing. In addition, there is no data available on the signaling pathways and the expression of healing biomarkers involved in the early stages of osseointegration after immediate implant placement (IP) or delayed implant placement (DP).\n\nThe primary objective of this study is to describe changes in the expression of inflammatory, angiogenesis and osseous biomarkers of saliva at 1, 3, 7, 15 and 30 days and of PICF at 3, 7, 15 and 30 days after immediate implant placement (IP) compared with delayed placement (DP).",[29,668,669,670],"Healing Wound","Biomarkers","Saliva",[672],"Implant placement protocol","2025-11-17",{"date":675,"type":42},"2025-11-19",{"date":677,"type":42},"2024-09-26",{"date":679,"type":23},"2026-12-31",{"name":681,"class":49},"Queen Mary University of London",{"id":683,"slug":684,"hasResults":12,"nctId":685,"briefTitle":686,"officialTitle":687,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":688,"healthyVolunteers":12,"sex":18,"minAge":94,"maxAge":188,"enrollmentInfo":689,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":24,"phases":690,"briefSummary":691,"conditions":692,"keywords":694,"overallStatus":173,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":697,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":698,"startDateStruct":700,"completionDateStruct":702,"leadSponsor":704,"locationsCount":115},"100555101","closed-sinus-augmentation-with-a-calcium-phosphosilicate-putty-100555101","NCT06507709","Closed Sinus Augmentation With a Calcium Phosphosilicate Putty","Radiographic Changes in the Maxillary Sinus Following Closed Sinus Augmentation With Calcium Phosphosilicate","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Ability of participant to understand and the willingness to sign a written informed consent document.\n2. English speaking.\n3. Individuals who are normal healthy or have a diabetes diagnosis with a current HbA1c (glycated glucose)\\\u003C 7.0.\n4. Partially edentulous patients (18-85 years of age) requiring maxillary sinus augmentation for dental implant placement\n5. At minimum 5mm of native bone below the maxillary sinus inferior border\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Maxillary sinus disease\n2. Diabetes diagnosis with a current HbA1c \\> 7.1 or greater due to diabetes effect on bone metabolism\n3. Pregnant or attempting to become pregnant\n4. Having a disease that affects bone metabolism\n5. Use of medications known to affect bone metabolism\n6. Tobacco, cannabis or vaping use\n7. Alcoholism or other recreational drugs",{"count":7,"type":23},[26],"The goal of this clinical study is to learn if cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or 3-dimensional x-ray can help to let the investigator know if dental implant placement can be done after performing closed sinus surgery.\n\nThe study will look at the structure of your gum where the implant will be placed after performing the surgery using 3-D x-ray and compare that to how the structure of your gum looks 6 months later.\n\nThe 3-D imaging will happen after standard of care surgery to prepare your gum for an implant and then 6 months later to verify that the site is ready for the implant.",[29,693],"Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation",[695,696],"Cone beam computed tomography","Calcium Phosphosilicate putty","2025-11-10",{"date":699,"type":42},"2025-11-12",{"date":701,"type":42},"2024-10-08",{"date":703,"type":23},"2027-06",{"name":114,"class":49}]