MedTrace Logo

Allogeneic Bone Paste Versus Allogeneic Bone Powder

NCT04141215 · Status: UNKNOWN · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 86

Last updated 2022-03-02

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Autogenous bone graft has been considered the gold standard in Guided Bone Regeneration (GBR) technique used for bone augmentation. However, there are disadvantages associated with autograft use such as limited amount of available bone and increased morbidity for the patient at the sampling site. Several biomaterials have been used as a replacement of the autogenous bone. Viral-inactivated bone allograft powder is an alternative that has proven efficacy and tolerance. This study aims to assess the non-inferiority of viral-inactivated allogeneic bone paste compared to a viral-inactivated cortico-cancellous allogenic bone powder in achieving the ideal bone volume.

Conditions

  • Bone Resorption
  • Dental Diseases

Interventions

BIOLOGICAL

BIOBank bone paste

BIOBank bone paste (PPT322)

BIOLOGICAL

BIOBank cortico-cancellous bone powder

BIOBank cortico-cancellous bone powder (PPT6)

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • EVAMED

    collaborator OTHER

  • Biobank

    lead INDUSTRY

Principal Investigators

  • Bruno Courtois, Dr · Clinique Rive Gauche (TOULOUSE)

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2019-11-15
Primary Completion
2022-11-30
Completion
2022-11-30

Countries

  • France

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT04141215 on ClinicalTrials.gov