Evaluation of Bone Behavior in Maxillary Post-extractive Sites Treated With Guided Bone Regeneration (G.B.R.) Techniques in Alveolar Socket Preservation (A.S.P.) Procedures With Different Autologous and Heterologous Biomaterials.

Summary

The maxillary bone atrophies from traumatic, pathological events or related to physiological bone loss after tooth extraction, promoting a decrease in bone volume (vertical-horizontal) which has always been a crucial challenge for the clinician in order to obtain adequate rehabilitations prosthetics.

The results of bone loss induced aesthetic and functional difficulties in achieving surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation of the right dental implant.

Bone loss can be restored with autologous bone grafts and in large bone atrophy of the jaws require complex surgical techniques such as vascularized bone transplantation.

As an alternative to the reconstruction of the maxillary tissue, several surgical techniques have been promoted to prevent or minimize bone resorption through market biomaterials with or without the patient's autologous bone.

To reduce or counteract biological bone resorption, surgeons have promoted alveolar cavity preservation procedures (ASP) with autologous or heterologous graft materials.

Recently, several studies have been published to evaluate the use of demineralized dentin material derived from the extracted tooth to obtain new bone in the maxillary post-extraction site.

The aim of the study is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of the alveolar socket preservation technique.

Conditions

• Extracting Own Teeth

Interventions

PROCEDURE

compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP Group 2

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 1

PROCEDURE

Comparison of different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 2

BIOLOGICAL

Comparison different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 3

PROCEDURE

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 4

PROCEDURE

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP

The aim is to compare different types of biomaterials 4 months after application through the use of ASP in Group 5

Sponsors & Collaborators

• University of Foggia

  lead OTHER

Study Design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

PREVENTION

Masking

NONE

Model

PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age

18 Years

Max Age

90 Years

Sex

ALL

Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Timeline & Regulatory

Start

2023-07-03

Primary Completion

2026-05-31

Completion

2026-05-31

Countries

• Italy

Study Locations