Alveolar Ridge PreservationNCT06275789
Mix of Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft and Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: a Possible Solution for Alveolar Ridge Preservation?
A study testing Alveolar ridge preservation in people with Alveolar Ridge Preservation and Dental Extraction, run by Nova Southeastern University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of the study is to compare a new grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation to a commonly used and well studied material. Alveolar ridge dimensions as well as histology will be compared. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Dental Extraction, Bone Graft
- What is being tested?
- Alveolar ridge preservation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 26 Jan 2024to Jun 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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
Who may be able to join
- Patients in good health
- Require the extraction of at least one premolar or molar with future implant placement
- Sufficient keratinized gingiva (equal or more than 2mm prior to extraction),
- No more than 3mm of buccal bone loss
- Flapless extraction possible
- Full mouth plaque index of less than 25%
Who cannot join
- Nicotine consumption equivalent to or more than 10 cigarettes per day
- Electronic cigarette usage
- A history of irradiation of head and neck area
- Immunodeficiency disease
- Uncontrolled systemic health problems (hypertension crisis 180/120, hyperthyroidism, diabetes with HbA1c over 7, recent history of stroke, cancer) History of medications that affect bone remodeling process (bisphosphonates, RANK-L inhibitors)
- Previous adverse reaction to the biomaterials used
Show all 9Show fewer
- Pregnancy/lactation, or those who are trying to become pregnant.
- Active uncontrolled or untreated periodontal disease
- Periapical lesions greater than 1 cm and soft tissue pathology
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33328
Saynur Vardar-Sengul, DDS, PhD, 954-262-1815, svardarsengul@nova.edu
About this study
The purpose of the study is to compare a new grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation to a commonly used and well studied material. Alveolar ridge dimensions as well as histology will be compared.
Read the detailed description
Brief Background and Goal: Dimensional changes following extractions are inevitable. Many techniques and combinations of materials have been studied and shown to be effective at minimizing these changes. Although no material has been able to fully preserve the ridge, xenografts have been shown to be the most effective at maintaining the volume, however, the use of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) results in the most vital bone when evaluated histologically. These factors are important when planning for a successful future implant supported prosthesis. A new material that combines xenograft (deproteinized bovine bone mineral - DBBM) with DFDBA has recently been introduced to the market. The aim of the study is to compare the dimensional and histological changes following flapless alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in the premolar and molar region with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft.
Research Question: In patients who require an extraction for future implant placement, during alveolar ridge preservation, will combining demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to Tutoplast® processed mineralized particulate allograft result in less dimensional changes at the time of implant placement 4 months later.
Specific Aims: The primary goal of the study is to compare the dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft material. The secondary goal is to assess the histological composition of the bone after 4 months of healing. The additional goals are to measure possible confounding factors on the dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge.
Significance: The goal behind the combination of DBBM and DFDBA is to evaluate whether there could potentially be a synergistic effect between the two materials that would make it a more desirable material to use for ARP procedures.
Innovation: There is currently no published research that compares the combination of DFDBA and DBBM to a conventional method inside the extraction site during an alveolar ridge preservation procedure. This grafting material is new on the market and the first of its kind.
Research Plan: The randomized clinical trial will be performed at the Nova Southeastern College of Dental Medicine in the Post-graduate Periodontology Clinic. 30 patients requiring premolar or molar extraction with future implant placement will be randomly divided into 2 groups, one test and one control. Following extraction, the patients will receive either allograft or graft combination of DFDBA and DBBM. The changes in horizontal and vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge as well as the histology will be assessed and compared at 4 months.
Expected Results: When compared to allograft, the graft mixture containing the DFDBA and DBBM will maintain greater dimensional volume due to the dimensionally stable properties of DBBM and will contain more vital bone due to the osteoinductive properties of DFDBA.
- Conditions
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Dental Extraction, Bone Graft
- Being tested
- Alveolar ridge preservation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Alveolar ridge preservationProcedure or surgery
Premolar tooth will be extracted flapless and ridge preservation procedure with bone grafting material will be done.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Experimental | This group will receive the grafting material that is a combination of DFDBA + DBBM + collagen matrix seal during the alveolar ridge preservation procedure. Receives: Procedure: Alveolar ridge preservation |
| Control Group | Active comparator | This group will receive the grafting material that is a Tutoplast® processed mineralized particulate allograft + collagen matrix seal during the alveolar ridge preservation procedure. Receives: Procedure: Alveolar ridge preservation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
changes in horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge
Soft and hard tissue horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge will be measured after extraction and 4 months later.
Measured: 4 months
changes in vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge
Soft and hard tissue vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge will be measured after extraction and 4 months later.
Measured: 4 months
Secondary outcomes (1)
vital bone percentage
vital bone percentage will evaluated histologically following biopsy at time of implant placement.
Measured: 4 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Feb 2024
- Study start26 Jan 2024
- Primary completionJun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (45)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Alveolar Ridge PreservationStudies 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
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Nova Southeastern University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Geistlich Pharma AG, ZimVie
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06275789
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2023-268
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 7 Feb 2024
- Last updated
- 12 Sep 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Amler MH. The time sequence of tissue regeneration in human extraction wounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969 Mar;27(3):309-18. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(69)90357-0. No abstract available.
PubMed 5251474Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313-23.
PubMed 12956475Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102. doi: 10.1111/prd.12170.
PubMed 28000278Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
PubMed 22211303Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Feb;32(2):212-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x.
PubMed 15691354Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:26-8. No abstract available.
PubMed 15635943Ten Heggeler JM, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):779-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
PubMed 21091540Avila-Ortiz G, Gubler M, Romero-Bustillos M, Nicholas CL, Zimmerman MB, Barwacz CA. Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Dent Res. 2020 Apr;99(4):402-409. doi: 10.1177/0022034520905660. Epub 2020 Feb 12.
PubMed 32050833Abellan D, Barallat L, Vilarrasa J, Cabezas M, Pascual La Rocca A, Valles C, Nart J. Ridge preservation in molar sites comparing xenograft versus mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 May;33(5):511-523. doi: 10.1111/clr.13911. Epub 2022 Mar 14.
PubMed 35218248Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61.
PubMed 15635945Canullo L, Tallarico M, Radovanovic S, Delibasic B, Covani U, Rakic M. Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Oct;27(10):1243-1250. doi: 10.1111/clr.12738. Epub 2015 Nov 20.
PubMed 26584716Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan;19(1):73-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01413.x. Epub 2007 Oct 22.
PubMed 17956569Araujo MG, Sukekava F, Wennstrom JL, Lindhe J. Ridge alterations following implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: an experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Jun;32(6):645-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00726.x.
PubMed 15882225Avila-Ortiz G, Chambrone L, Vignoletti F. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation interventions following tooth extraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Jun;46 Suppl 21:195-223. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13057.
PubMed 30623987Avila-Ortiz G, Elangovan S, Kramer KW, Blanchette D, Dawson DV. Effect of alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):950-8. doi: 10.1177/0022034514541127. Epub 2014 Jun 25.
PubMed 24966231
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Sep 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Mix of Demineralized Freeze-Dried Bone Allograft and Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: a Possible Solution for Alveolar Ridge Preservation?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06275789
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2023-268
- Conditions
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Dental Extraction, Bone Graft
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Nova Southeastern UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Geistlich Pharma AG, ZimVie
- Study start
- 26 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 23 Feb 2024 (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.
The purpose of the study is to compare a new grafting material for alveolar ridge preservation to a commonly used and well studied material. Alveolar ridge dimensions as well as histology will be compared.
Detailed description
Brief Background and Goal: Dimensional changes following extractions are inevitable. Many techniques and combinations of materials have been studied and shown to be effective at minimizing these changes. Although no material has been able to fully preserve the ridge, xenografts have been shown to be the most effective at maintaining the volume, however, the use of demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) results in the most vital bone when evaluated histologically. These factors are important when planning for a successful future implant supported prosthesis. A new material that combines xenograft (deproteinized bovine bone mineral - DBBM) with DFDBA has recently been introduced to the market. The aim of the study is to compare the dimensional and histological changes following flapless alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) in the premolar and molar region with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft.
Research Question: In patients who require an extraction for future implant placement, during alveolar ridge preservation, will combining demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (DFDBA) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to Tutoplast® processed mineralized particulate allograft result in less dimensional changes at the time of implant placement 4 months later.
Specific Aims: The primary goal of the study is to compare the dimensional changes following alveolar ridge preservation with a new material that combines DFDBA and DBBM to a commonly used mineralized allograft material. The secondary goal is to assess the histological composition of the bone after 4 months of healing. The additional goals are to measure possible confounding factors on the dimensional changes of the alveolar ridge.
Significance: The goal behind the combination of DBBM and DFDBA is to evaluate whether there could potentially be a synergistic effect between the two materials that would make it a more desirable material to use for ARP procedures.
Innovation: There is currently no published research that compares the combination of DFDBA and DBBM to a conventional method inside the extraction site during an alveolar ridge preservation procedure. This grafting material is new on the market and the first of its kind.
Research Plan: The randomized clinical trial will be performed at the Nova Southeastern College of Dental Medicine in the Post-graduate Periodontology Clinic. 30 patients requiring premolar or molar extraction with future implant placement will be randomly divided into 2 groups, one test and one control. Following extraction, the patients will receive either allograft or graft combination of DFDBA and DBBM. The changes in horizontal and vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge as well as the histology will be assessed and compared at 4 months.
Expected Results: When compared to allograft, the graft mixture containing the DFDBA and DBBM will maintain greater dimensional volume due to the dimensionally stable properties of DBBM and will contain more vital bone due to the osteoinductive properties of DFDBA.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Test Group | Experimental | Procedure: Alveolar ridge preservationThis group will receive the grafting material that is a combination of DFDBA + DBBM + collagen matrix seal during the alveolar ridge preservation procedure. |
| Control Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Alveolar ridge preservationThis group will receive the grafting material that is a Tutoplast® processed mineralized particulate allograft + collagen matrix seal during the alveolar ridge preservation procedure. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients in good health
- Require the extraction of at least one premolar or molar with future implant placement
- Sufficient keratinized gingiva (equal or more than 2mm prior to extraction),
- No more than 3mm of buccal bone loss
- Flapless extraction possible
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Nicotine consumption equivalent to or more than 10 cigarettes per day
- Electronic cigarette usage
- A history of irradiation of head and neck area
- Immunodeficiency disease
- Uncontrolled systemic health problems (hypertension crisis 180/120, hyperthyroidism, diabetes with HbA1c over 7, recent history of stroke, cancer) History of medications that affect bone remodeling process (bisphosphonates, RANK-L inhibitors)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Alveolar ridge preservationPremolar tooth will be extracted flapless and ridge preservation procedure with bone grafting material will be done. | Procedure or surgery | Control Group, Test Group |
Primary outcome
changes in horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge
Time frame: 4 months
Soft and hard tissue horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge will be measured after extraction and 4 months later.
changes in vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge
Time frame: 4 months
Soft and hard tissue vertical dimensions of the alveolar ridge will be measured after extraction and 4 months later.
1 secondary outcome
vital bone percentage
Time frame: 4 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Sep 2025.
- Background: PubMed 5251474Amler MH. The time sequence of tissue regeneration in human extraction wounds. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969 Mar;27(3):309-18. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(69)90357-0. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 12956475Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2003 Aug;23(4):313-23.
- Background: PubMed 28000278Buser D, Chappuis V, Belser UC, Chen S. Implant placement post extraction in esthetic single tooth sites: when immediate, when early, when late? Periodontol 2000. 2017 Feb;73(1):84-102. doi: 10.1111/prd.12170.
- Background: PubMed 22211303Tan WL, Wong TL, Wong MC, Lang NP. A systematic review of post-extractional alveolar hard and soft tissue dimensional changes in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23 Suppl 5:1-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02375.x.
- Background: PubMed 15691354Araujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Feb;32(2):212-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00642.x.
- Background: PubMed 15635943Hammerle CH, Chen ST, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:26-8. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21091540Ten Heggeler JM, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. Effect of socket preservation therapies following tooth extraction in non-molar regions in humans: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):779-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02064.x. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
- Background: PubMed 32050833Avila-Ortiz G, Gubler M, Romero-Bustillos M, Nicholas CL, Zimmerman MB, Barwacz CA. Efficacy of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Dent Res. 2020 Apr;99(4):402-409. doi: 10.1177/0022034520905660. Epub 2020 Feb 12.
- Background: PubMed 35218248Abellan D, Barallat L, Vilarrasa J, Cabezas M, Pascual La Rocca A, Valles C, Nart J. Ridge preservation in molar sites comparing xenograft versus mineralized freeze-dried bone allograft: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 May;33(5):511-523. doi: 10.1111/clr.13911. Epub 2022 Mar 14.
- Background: PubMed 15635945Buser D, Martin W, Belser UC. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19 Suppl:43-61.
- Background: PubMed 26584716Canullo L, Tallarico M, Radovanovic S, Delibasic B, Covani U, Rakic M. Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Oct;27(10):1243-1250. doi: 10.1111/clr.12738. Epub 2015 Nov 20.
- Background: PubMed 17956569Evans CD, Chen ST. Esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jan;19(1):73-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01413.x. Epub 2007 Oct 22.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Alveolar Ridge Preservation
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Ascorbic Acid-Loaded I-PRF With Partially Demineralized Dentin Graft on Alveolar Ridge Preservation
Alveolar Ridge Preservation Post-Extraction Bone Healing Dental Implant Site Development Tooth Loss, Alveolar Bone Regeneration Following Odontectomy
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
RecruitingPhase 4
Biotivity A-C Membrane Socket Preservation Study
Alveolar Ridge Preservation
Active, not recruiting
Vallomix Socket Preservation Study
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Alveolar ridge preservation in people with Alveolar Ridge Preservation and Dental Extraction, run by Nova Southeastern University at 1 site in United States.
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 6 inclusion and 9 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Sep 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Andee Goldstein, DMD (7542599445, ag3577@mynsu.nova.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
changes in horizontal dimensions of the alveolar ridge (time frame: 4 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT06275789, which also lists 45 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 12 Sep 2025.