Alveolar Bone ResorptionNCT04830670
Bone Formation Maxillary Sinus Width
An observational study of Alveolar Bone Resorption, run by International Piezosurgery Academy at 3 sites in Italy.
Trial summary
According to previous scientific evidence lining on biological concept of bone regeneration into the maxillary sinus, an observational study was set up to record possible (hypothesized) difference in bone formation between different width of the maxillary sinus itself. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alveolar Bone Resorption
- What is being tested?
- sinus floor elevation with lateral approach
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 3 sitesItaly
- Study dates
- 15 Mar 2017to 15 Mar 2021
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Any patient with Kennedy class II partial edentulism (Kennedy 1928) requiring unilateral sinus floor elevation for the placement of two not adjacent dental implants supporting a fixed partial prosthesis was eligible for entering this study
Who may be able to join
- height of the residual bone crest <5 mm in both sites where implant placement was planned;
- age >18 years;
- written informed consent given.
Who cannot join
- general contraindications to implant surgery
- smokers
- uncontrolled diabetes (HBA1c > 7.5%)
- treated or under treatment with intravenous antiresorptive drugs
- allergy to bovine collagen
- immunosuppressed
Show all 14Show fewer
- irradiated in the head and neck area
- pregnant or breastfeeding
- substance abusers
- psychiatric problems or unrealistic expectations
- patient not fully able to comply with the study protocol.
- maxillary sinus conditions contraindicating sinus floor elevation
- poor oral hygiene and motivation (FMPS >25 and or FMBS>20)
- Schneiderian membrane perforation during surgery
Trial locations and contacts
3 sites in 1 country.
Italy3 sites
Hesire
Cassano Allo Ionio, CS, 87011
Studio
Gorizia, GO, 34170
Studio B
Verona, VR, 37045
About this study
Official title: Comparison of Bone Formation According to Different Maxillary Sinus Width: a Multicenter Prospective Study.
According to previous scientific evidence lining on biological concept of bone regeneration into the maxillary sinus, an observational study was set up to record possible (hypothesized) difference in bone formation between different width of the maxillary sinus itself. Therefore, a multicenter study was set up that foresaw a surgical intervention of sinus lift with lateral approach, the 6 months healing phase, the implant insertion in two sites with the implant site preparation made by a trephine bur to retrieve a bone specimen for histomorphometric examination without any additive invasively for the patient.
Read the detailed description
Material and Methods Study protocol This study was designed as a multicenter prospective study following STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. All procedures were performed in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in Fortaleza for investigations with human subjects. The study protocol had been approved by the relevant ethical committee (Comitato Etico Calabria-Sezione Area Nord n. 55/2016). Patients, after being thoroughly informed about the study protocol, the treatment, its alternatives and any potential risk, signed a written informed consent for the participation in the study and authorized the use of their data for research purposes.
Any patient with Kennedy class II partial edentulism requiring unilateral sinus floor elevation for the placement of two not adjacent dental implants supporting a fixed partial prosthesis was eligible for entering this study.
Pre-surgical phase Patients recruited in the present study underwent a careful clinical examination, including assessment of periodontal conditions (probing and periapical radiographs), evaluation of available bone volume in the edentulous areas on cone beam computed tomography and analysis of occlusal relationships (diagnostic wax-up). A surgical resin guide was manufactured by duplicating the diagnostic wax-up.
All patients received professional mechanical tooth cleaning and periodontal debridement one week prior to surgery and were prescribed with chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2% mouthwash twice a day.
Surgical procedure All patients underwent antibiotic prophylaxis (2 g single-dose amoxicillin one hour before surgery). After performing local anaesthesia (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100.000) and elevating a full-thickness flap, the surgical guide was placed in position and an antrostomy was created by consuming the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus with ultrasonic instrumentation in the area between the two planned implant sites. The sinus membrane was then carefully elevated and, after checking its integrity with visual inspection and Valsalva maneuver, the subantral space was filled with a composite graft in granules [50% cortico-cancellous porcine graft (Gen-Os, Tecnoss, Pianezza, Italy) - 50% synthetic nano-hydroxyapatite (Fisiograft Bone, Ghimas, Casalecchio di Reno, Italy)]. A resorbable bovine collagen membrane (Bio-Gide, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) fixed with two pins was placed to cover the lateral antrostomy and flaps were sutured with Sentineri sutures and single stitches using synthetic monofilament. Patients were prescribed with antibiotics for 4 days (amoxicillin 1 g three times a day) and NSAID (ibuprofen 600 mg), when needed. Sutures were removed after 10 days.
After 6 months of healing, a cone beam tc scan was performed to evaluate the radiographic outcome of the regenerative procedure and to plan implant insertion. With the assistance of the surgical template, two bone-core biopsy biopsies were harvested in the planned implant sites by using 3-mm diameter trephine drills (2982.Y0.30, DenTag, Maniago, Italy) (Fig. 3-4). Dental implants were then inserted in the biopsy sites: after 5 months of submerged healing, they were restored with screwed ceramic crowns.
Radiographic measurements Radiographic measurements were taken from the three cone beam CT cross-sectional slices (step 1 mm; width 1 mm) corresponding to the position where the biopsy was retrieved. Two independent calibrated examiners (A.R. and Fe.Be.) measured residual bone height (RBH) between the alveolar ridge and the sinus floor; sinus width (SW) (distance between buccal and palatal walls at 10-mm level, comprising the residual alveolar crest. Distances were measured by using the specific tool of an imaging software (OsiriX MD, Pixmeo SARL, Bernex, Switzerland) and were expressed in millimeters. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed with Cohen's K test.
Sample processing for histological analysis Histologic and histomorphometric analyses of all specimens were performed by one of the authors (VN), blinded to the study design and to biopsy origin. Immediately after harvesting, biopsies were carefully rinsed with cold 5% glucose solution to remove blood remnants maintaining the correct osmolarity (278 milliosmole/L).
Specimens were subsequently fixed for three days in 10% buffered formalin solution at pH 7.2, and then dehydrated in an ascending series of alcohol rinses and embedded in a methacrylate resin (Technovit 7200 VLC, Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany). After 12 days of polymerization, biopsies were cut along their longitudinal axis with a high-precision carborundum disk at 50 µm and then ground down under running water with a series of polishing discs to about 30 ± 10 µm. The slides were then mounted and stained with acid fuchsine-toluidine blue and von Kossa staining.
Histomorphometry The following variables were measured for each biopsy: total area of the biopsy (in mm2), percentage of newly-formed bone (NFB),percentage of connective tissue/marrow spaces (MS), and percentage of residual graft particles (RG). The analysis was performed using transmitted brightfield light microscope (Biostar B3; Exacta Optech, San Prospero, Italy), connected to high resolution digital camera (Moticam 5.0; Motic Microscopy, Kowloon, China). A software with image capturing capabilities (Image-Pro Plus 6.0; Media Cybernetics Inc., Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.) was used to analyze images. Software calibration was performed for each image analysis by using the "Calibration Wizard" tool, which reports the number of pixels between two selected points. Linear remapping of the pixel numbers was used to calibrate the distance in µm or in mm according to the magnification degree.
Predictor and outcome variables This prospective study tested the null hypothesis of no differences in new bone formation among areas of different width in the same sinus against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
The primary predictor variables were sinus width (SW) and residual bone height (RBH).
Primary outcome measure:
- new bone formation (NFB) after six months of healing
Secondary outcome measures:
- residual graft (RG): after six months of healing
- any complications or adverse events
Sample size calculation and statistical power A statistical software (Statistica per Discipline Biomediche, Version 6.0, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, NY, U.S.A.) was used to determine the sample size of this prospective study, basing on data of a previous publication. Expected difference in NFB (as mean percentage) between narrow and wide part of the sinus was 13.8±18.25% (using sinus width=13 mm as a cut-off). A sample of 16 histological specimens for each group was required to detect significant differences between the two groups (confidence level 5% with statistical power of 80%).
Statistical analysis An independent investigator (A.R.) analyzed all datasets with statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data normality was assessed with Shapiro-Wilk test: all datasets met the required assumptions for using parametric methods. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation. The value of α was set to 0.05.
Differences in NFB between mesial and distal sites were evaluated by means of paired samples t-test. The potential influence of sinus width and RBH on NFB and RG percentage was evaluated by using Pearson correlation coefficient.
- Conditions
- Alveolar Bone Resorption
- Being tested
- sinus floor elevation with lateral approach
- Keywords
- Sinus lift;, sinus elevation;, sinus width;, bone graft, histomorphometry, alveolar bone atrophy
- Medical subject headings
- Alveolar Bone Loss
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
sinus floor elevation with lateral approachProcedure or surgery
sinus floor elevation with lateral approach. 6 months healing phase. implant site preparation with trephine bur and bone specimen retrieval.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Large sinus | same patient, sinus width > 12mm measured at 10mm from the alveolar crest at the planned implant site Receives: Procedure: sinus floor elevation with lateral approach | |
| narrow sinus | same patient, sinus width < 12mm measured at 10mm from the alveolar crest at the planned implant site Receives: Procedure: sinus floor elevation with lateral approach |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
quantity (%) of newly formed bone
quantity (%) of newly formed bone (NFB) in histomorphometric analysis
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (2)
quantity (%) of graft
quantity (%) of residual graft (RG) in histomorphometric analysis
Measured: 6 months
quantity of complications
quantity of any complications or adverse events
Measured: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Apr 2021
- Study start15 Mar 2017
- Primary completion15 Mar 2020
- Study completion15 Mar 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Alveolar Bone ResorptionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- International Piezosurgery Academy
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Claudio Stacchi, Dr., Principal investigator, Piezoelectricsurgery Academy
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04830670
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- WIDE&NARROW
- Status last verified
- Apr 2021
- First submitted
- 25 Mar 2021
- Last updated
- 5 Apr 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: data will be shared after data managing and statistics
Publications
Stacchi C, Spinato S, Lombardi T, Bernardello F, Bertoldi C, Zaffe D, Nevins M. Minimally Invasive Management of Implant-Supported Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla, Part I. Sinus Floor Elevation: Biologic Principles and Materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun;40(3):e85-e93. doi: 10.11607/prd.4497.
PubMed 32233183Stacchi C, Spinato S, Lombardi T, Bernardello F, Bertoldi C, Zaffe D, Nevins M. Minimally Invasive Management of Implant-Supported Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla, Part II. Surgical Techniques and Decision Tree. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun;40(3):e95-e102. doi: 10.11607/prd.4498.
PubMed 32233185Stacchi C, Vercellotti T, Toschetti A, Speroni S, Salgarello S, Di Lenarda R. Intraoperative complications during sinus floor elevation using two different ultrasonic approaches: a two-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17 Suppl 1:e117-25. doi: 10.1111/cid.12136. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
PubMed 23968289Avila G, Wang HL, Galindo-Moreno P, Misch CE, Bagramian RA, Rudek I, Benavides E, Moreno-Riestra I, Braun T, Neiva R. The influence of the bucco-palatal distance on sinus augmentation outcomes. J Periodontol. 2010 Jul;81(7):1041-50. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.090686.
PubMed 20450402
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Apr 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparison of Bone Formation According to Different Maxillary Sinus Width: a Multicenter Prospective Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04830670
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- WIDE&NARROW
- Conditions
- Alveolar Bone Resorption
- Keywords
- Sinus lift;, sinus elevation;, sinus width;, bone graft, histomorphometry, alveolar bone atrophy
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- International Piezosurgery AcademyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Mar 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Mar 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Mar 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 5 Apr 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
According to previous scientific evidence lining on biological concept of bone regeneration into the maxillary sinus, an observational study was set up to record possible (hypothesized) difference in bone formation between different width of the maxillary sinus itself. Therefore, a multicenter study was set up that foresaw a surgical intervention of sinus lift with lateral approach, the 6 months healing phase, the implant insertion in two sites with the implant site preparation made by a trephine bur to retrieve a bone specimen for histomorphometric examination without any additive invasively for the patient.
Detailed description
Material and Methods Study protocol This study was designed as a multicenter prospective study following STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. All procedures were performed in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in Fortaleza for investigations with human subjects. The study protocol had been approved by the relevant ethical committee (Comitato Etico Calabria-Sezione Area Nord n. 55/2016). Patients, after being thoroughly informed about the study protocol, the treatment, its alternatives and any potential risk, signed a written informed consent for the participation in the study and authorized the use of their data for research purposes.
Any patient with Kennedy class II partial edentulism requiring unilateral sinus floor elevation for the placement of two not adjacent dental implants supporting a fixed partial prosthesis was eligible for entering this study.
Pre-surgical phase Patients recruited in the present study underwent a careful clinical examination, including assessment of periodontal conditions (probing and periapical radiographs), evaluation of available bone volume in the edentulous areas on cone beam computed tomography and analysis of occlusal relationships (diagnostic wax-up). A surgical resin guide was manufactured by duplicating the diagnostic wax-up.
All patients received professional mechanical tooth cleaning and periodontal debridement one week prior to surgery and were prescribed with chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2% mouthwash twice a day.
Surgical procedure All patients underwent antibiotic prophylaxis (2 g single-dose amoxicillin one hour before surgery). After performing local anaesthesia (articaine 4% with epinephrine 1:100.000) and elevating a full-thickness flap, the surgical guide was placed in position and an antrostomy was created by consuming the lateral wall of the maxillary sinus with ultrasonic instrumentation in the area between the two planned implant sites. The sinus membrane was then carefully elevated and, after checking its integrity with visual inspection and Valsalva maneuver, the subantral space was filled with a composite graft in granules [50% cortico-cancellous porcine graft (Gen-Os, Tecnoss, Pianezza, Italy) - 50% synthetic nano-hydroxyapatite (Fisiograft Bone, Ghimas, Casalecchio di Reno, Italy)]. A resorbable bovine collagen membrane (Bio-Gide, Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) fixed with two pins was placed to cover the lateral antrostomy and flaps were sutured with Sentineri sutures and single stitches using synthetic monofilament. Patients were prescribed with antibiotics for 4 days (amoxicillin 1 g three times a day) and NSAID (ibuprofen 600 mg), when needed. Sutures were removed after 10 days.
After 6 months of healing, a cone beam tc scan was performed to evaluate the radiographic outcome of the regenerative procedure and to plan implant insertion. With the assistance of the surgical template, two bone-core biopsy biopsies were harvested in the planned implant sites by using 3-mm diameter trephine drills (2982.Y0.30, DenTag, Maniago, Italy) (Fig. 3-4). Dental implants were then inserted in the biopsy sites: after 5 months of submerged healing, they were restored with screwed ceramic crowns.
Radiographic measurements Radiographic measurements were taken from the three cone beam CT cross-sectional slices (step 1 mm; width 1 mm) corresponding to the position where the biopsy was retrieved. Two independent calibrated examiners (A.R. and Fe.Be.) measured residual bone height (RBH) between the alveolar ridge and the sinus floor; sinus width (SW) (distance between buccal and palatal walls at 10-mm level, comprising the residual alveolar crest. Distances were measured by using the specific tool of an imaging software (OsiriX MD, Pixmeo SARL, Bernex, Switzerland) and were expressed in millimeters. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed with Cohen's K test.
Sample processing for histological analysis Histologic and histomorphometric analyses of all specimens were performed by one of the authors (VN), blinded to the study design and to biopsy origin. Immediately after harvesting, biopsies were carefully rinsed with cold 5% glucose solution to remove blood remnants maintaining the correct osmolarity (278 milliosmole/L).
Specimens were subsequently fixed for three days in 10% buffered formalin solution at pH 7.2, and then dehydrated in an ascending series of alcohol rinses and embedded in a methacrylate resin (Technovit 7200 VLC, Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany). After 12 days of polymerization, biopsies were cut along their longitudinal axis with a high-precision carborundum disk at 50 µm and then ground down under running water with a series of polishing discs to about 30 ± 10 µm. The slides were then mounted and stained with acid fuchsine-toluidine blue and von Kossa staining.
Histomorphometry The following variables were measured for each biopsy: total area of the biopsy (in mm2), percentage of newly-formed bone (NFB),percentage of connective tissue/marrow spaces (MS), and percentage of residual graft particles (RG). The analysis was performed using transmitted brightfield light microscope (Biostar B3; Exacta Optech, San Prospero, Italy), connected to high resolution digital camera (Moticam 5.0; Motic Microscopy, Kowloon, China). A software with image capturing capabilities (Image-Pro Plus 6.0; Media Cybernetics Inc., Bethesda, MD, U.S.A.) was used to analyze images. Software calibration was performed for each image analysis by using the "Calibration Wizard" tool, which reports the number of pixels between two selected points. Linear remapping of the pixel numbers was used to calibrate the distance in µm or in mm according to the magnification degree.
Predictor and outcome variables This prospective study tested the null hypothesis of no differences in new bone formation among areas of different width in the same sinus against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
The primary predictor variables were sinus width (SW) and residual bone height (RBH).
Primary outcome measure:
- new bone formation (NFB) after six months of healing
Secondary outcome measures:
- residual graft (RG): after six months of healing
- any complications or adverse events
Sample size calculation and statistical power A statistical software (Statistica per Discipline Biomediche, Version 6.0, Mc Graw-Hill, New York, NY, U.S.A.) was used to determine the sample size of this prospective study, basing on data of a previous publication. Expected difference in NFB (as mean percentage) between narrow and wide part of the sinus was 13.8±18.25% (using sinus width=13 mm as a cut-off). A sample of 16 histological specimens for each group was required to detect significant differences between the two groups (confidence level 5% with statistical power of 80%).
Statistical analysis An independent investigator (A.R.) analyzed all datasets with statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Data normality was assessed with Shapiro-Wilk test: all datasets met the required assumptions for using parametric methods. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation. The value of α was set to 0.05.
Differences in NFB between mesial and distal sites were evaluated by means of paired samples t-test. The potential influence of sinus width and RBH on NFB and RG percentage was evaluated by using Pearson correlation coefficient.
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-control
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Large sinus | – | Procedure: sinus floor elevation with lateral approachsame patient, sinus width > 12mm measured at 10mm from the alveolar crest at the planned implant site |
| narrow sinus | – | Procedure: sinus floor elevation with lateral approachsame patient, sinus width < 12mm measured at 10mm from the alveolar crest at the planned implant site |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Any patient with Kennedy class II partial edentulism (Kennedy 1928) requiring unilateral sinus floor elevation for the placement of two not adjacent dental implants supporting a fixed partial prosthesis was eligible for entering this study
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- height of the residual bone crest <5 mm in both sites where implant placement was planned;
- age >18 years;
- written informed consent given.
Key exclusion criteria (14 listed)
- general contraindications to implant surgery
- smokers
- uncontrolled diabetes (HBA1c > 7.5%)
- treated or under treatment with intravenous antiresorptive drugs
- allergy to bovine collagen
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| sinus floor elevation with lateral approachsinus floor elevation with lateral approach. 6 months healing phase. implant site preparation with trephine bur and bone specimen retrieval. | Procedure or surgery | Large sinus, narrow sinus |
Primary outcome
quantity (%) of newly formed bone
Time frame: 6 months
quantity (%) of newly formed bone (NFB) in histomorphometric analysis
2 secondary outcomes
quantity (%) of graft
Time frame: 6 months
quantity of complications
Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 year
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Apr 2021.
- Results publication: PubMed 32233183Stacchi C, Spinato S, Lombardi T, Bernardello F, Bertoldi C, Zaffe D, Nevins M. Minimally Invasive Management of Implant-Supported Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla, Part I. Sinus Floor Elevation: Biologic Principles and Materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun;40(3):e85-e93. doi: 10.11607/prd.4497.
- Results publication: PubMed 32233185Stacchi C, Spinato S, Lombardi T, Bernardello F, Bertoldi C, Zaffe D, Nevins M. Minimally Invasive Management of Implant-Supported Rehabilitation in the Posterior Maxilla, Part II. Surgical Techniques and Decision Tree. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020 May/Jun;40(3):e95-e102. doi: 10.11607/prd.4498.
- Results publication: PubMed 23968289Stacchi C, Vercellotti T, Toschetti A, Speroni S, Salgarello S, Di Lenarda R. Intraoperative complications during sinus floor elevation using two different ultrasonic approaches: a two-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17 Suppl 1:e117-25. doi: 10.1111/cid.12136. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
- Results publication: PubMed 20450402Avila G, Wang HL, Galindo-Moreno P, Misch CE, Bagramian RA, Rudek I, Benavides E, Moreno-Riestra I, Braun T, Neiva R. The influence of the bucco-palatal distance on sinus augmentation outcomes. J Periodontol. 2010 Jul;81(7):1041-50. doi: 10.1902/jop.2010.090686.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. data will be shared after data managing and statistics
Related trials for Alveolar Bone Resorption
Recruiting
Effect of Collagen Membrane on Ridge Preservation
Dehiscence, Tooth Extraction
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) Study Using Alloplastic Biomaterial and a Resorbable Synthetic Membrane. A Digital Workflow (CBCT/Scanner) Evaluates Hard and Soft Tissue Volumetric Changes at 4 Months, Validating Support for the Gingival Phenotype and Buccal Bone Plate.
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation, Bone Substitutes
Recruiting
Melatonin Effect on Immediate Dental Implants in the Posterior Mandible
Dental Implant, Immediate Dental Implant Placement
Not yet recruiting
Bone and Soft Tissue Healing After Socket Preservation With NOVAMag or Permamem Membranes
Alveolar Bone Loss, Tooth Loss / Rehabilitation
Recruiting
Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cells for the Repair of Severe Maxillofacial Bone Defects
Maxillofacial Bone Defect, Alveolar Bone Loss
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Claudio Stacchi, Dr. principal investigator
Piezoelectricsurgery Academy
3 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Alveolar Bone Resorption, run by International Piezosurgery Academy at 3 sites in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 14 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Apr 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 3 sites in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
quantity (%) of newly formed bone (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04830670, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Apr 2021.