Alveolar Bone LossLMPONCT06887595
Linear Micro-Perforation Osteotomy Ridge Split Approach
A study testing Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting and AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting in people with Alveolar Bone Loss and Dental Implant Failed, run by Kafrelsheikh University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
The traditional ridge split technique might be performed simultaneously with implant placement, resulting in a shortened treatment time. However, this approach has the potential for serious complications, including buccal bone fracture, prolonged pain or paresthesia, and loss of bone height. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 40 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Implant Failed
- What is being tested?
- Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting and AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 22 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 18 Mar 2025to 5 May 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 to 40 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients presenting with narrow alveolar ridge that requires dental implantation.
- Minimum bone width of 3 mm
- Ridge width of not less than 3 mm in CBCT image
- Minimum bone height of 10 mm
- Proper inter-occlusal space
- Perioperative cone beam CT scan image of the atrophic ridge
Who cannot join
- • Uncontrolled diabetes.
- Heavy smokers.
- Current chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
- Alcohol or drug abuse.
- Pregnant women.
- Active infection.
- Inter-occlusal space not less than 7-8 mm.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Egypt1 site
faculty of dentistry, kafrelsheikh University
Kafr ash Shaykh, Kafrelsheikh, 214312
About this study
Official title: A Comparative Study of AI-Powered/Computer-Guided Versus Conventional Linear Micro-Perforation Split Approach for Treatment of Horizontal Mandibular Ridge Atrophy (A Randomized Clinical Trial)
The traditional ridge split technique might be performed simultaneously with implant placement, resulting in a shortened treatment time. However, this approach has the potential for serious complications, including buccal bone fracture, prolonged pain or paresthesia, and loss of bone height. Linear Micro-Perforation Osteotomy (LMPO) has emerged as a less invasive alternative, promoting natural bone expansion through controlled micro-perforations in the cortical bone, allowing for ridge widening without extensive grafting. However, the precision required for LMPO can be difficult to achieve manually, especially in anatomically complex or narrow ridge areas, leading to variability in outcomes and potential risks such as bone fractures or inadequate expansion.Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy, clinical, and radiological outcomes of the flapless AI-powered/computer-guided LMPO ridge split/expansion technique compared to the traditional LMPO ridge split/expansion method for lateral ridge reconstruction of mandibular horizontal ridge deficiencies.
Read the detailed description
In contemporary dentistry, the aim is to replace missing teeth with prosthetics or to remove diseased teeth from the patient and return them to normal in terms of shape, function, comfort, appearance, speech, and health. Why implant dentistry is different is the capacity to fulfill this objective despite atrophy, illness, or harm to the stomatognathic apparatus.
Implant-based dental rehabilitation of partly or completely edentulous areas has become a frequent procedure with consistent long-term outcomes in recent decades. Nevertheless, alveolar ridges are frequently impaired with horizontal inadequacy as a result of bone resorption, which has an impact on implant application.
The resorption of alveolar bone is a common sequelae of tooth loss and presents a clinical problem for implant placement. Implants must be placed with at least 1 mm of bone on the buccal and lingual aspects to maintain crestal bone levels.
Narrow edentulous ridges less than 5 mm wide present a challenge to the clinician for implant placement. Hence, lateral bone augmentation procedures are necessary to overcome maxillary and mandibular bone deficiencies. These procedures involve the use of bone augmentation, such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), bone block (autogenous or non-autogenous), and conventional onlay/inlay graft. Those procedures have many drawbacks such as longer healing time (6-9 months) for adequate bone regeneration before implant placement, the possibility of membrane exposure, an increased risk of infection, high cost, and rapid graft resorption; thus leading to inadequate bone regeneration or loss of the newly formed bone.
Based on previous knowledge, ridge split/expansion was introduced as an alternative to treat the width insufficiency of alveolar ridges with specific indications. The basic procedure includes a sagittal osteotomy in the center of the edentulous ridge, where the two cortical plates are expanded to increase the width and thereby simultaneous implant insertion with an appropriate diameter could be achieved.
Due to double cellularity and double vascularity gained from the lateral bony plate, bone healing, and regeneration tendency were significantly improved without the need for bone graft or membrane. A shorter treatment period, no need for donor sites, and the possibility of simultaneous implant placement are among the merits of ridge splitting over different augmentation techniques.
For successful ridge split with simultaneous implantation, the alveolar ridge width should be 3 mm or more with at least 1 mm trabecular bone between the cortical plates.
The splitting could be performed using the chisel and mallet, the surgical disc, ultra-fine fissure burs, and recently the piezoelectric surgical devices and the electromagnetic mallet. Osteotomes, chisels, bone spreaders, and engine-driven expanders were utilized for Ridge expansion.
The traditional ridge split technique might be performed simultaneously with implant placement, resulting in a shortened treatment time. However, this approach has the potential for serious complications, including buccal bone fracture, prolonged pain or paresthesia, and loss of bone height. On the other hand, the staged approach has been proposed with splitting and expansion performed followed by implant placement after a 3-week healing interval to allow re-establishment of the blood supply to the surgical site.
Linear Micro-Perforation Osteotomy (LMPO) has emerged as a less invasive alternative, promoting natural bone expansion through controlled micro-perforations in the cortical bone, allowing for ridge widening without extensive grafting. However, the precision required for LMPO can be difficult to achieve manually, especially in anatomically complex or narrow ridge areas, leading to variability in outcomes and potential risks such as bone fractures or inadequate expansion.
Computer-guided technology presents an opportunity to enhance LMPO by providing a structured, pre-planned guide for split-osteotomy and expansion. Utilizing 3D imaging data, a computer-guided splint can be custom-fabricated to fit each patient's unique anatomy, offering unparalleled accuracy in osteotomy execution and minimizing the risk of error. Additionally, performing LMPO without flap elevation with the assistance of this guided splint further reduces surgical trauma, preserves periosteal blood supply, and promotes faster healing, making it a more patient-friendly option.
Limited clinical data are available about LMPO. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy, clinical, and radiological outcomes of the flapless AI-powered/computer-guided LMPO ridge split/expansion technique compared to the traditional LMPO ridge split/expansion method for lateral ridge reconstruction of mandibular horizontal ridge deficiencies.
- Conditions
- Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Implant Failed
- Being tested
- Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting, AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting
- 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.
Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingProcedure or surgery
Also called Free-hand crestal ridge splitting expansion after linear micro perforation osteotomy will be performed using electromagnetic mallet
AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting
AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingProcedure or surgery
AI-assisted/computer-guided crestal ridge splitting expansion after linear micro perforation osteotomy will be performed using electromagnetic mallet
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| study group I | Experimental | ridge split and expansion with free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy approach with simultaneous implant placement Receives: Procedure: Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting |
| study group II | Experimental | ridge split and expansion with AI-assisted/computer-guided (linear micro perforation osteotomy approach with simultaneous implant placement) Receives: Procedure: AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
ridge width
The width of the alveolar bone will be measured again using CBCT
Measured: 12-months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Mar 2025
- Study start18 Mar 2025
- Primary completion20 Apr 2026
- Study completion5 May 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Alveolar Bone LossStudies 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Kafrelsheikh University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Walid Elamrousy, Kafrelsheikh University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06887595
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- KFSIRB200-467
- Acronym
- LMPO
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 16 Mar 2025
- Last updated
- 7 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: sharing upon request
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Comparative Study of AI-Powered/Computer-Guided Versus Conventional Linear Micro-Perforation Split Approach for Treatment of Horizontal Mandibular Ridge Atrophy (A Randomized Clinical Trial)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06887595
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- LMPO / KFSIRB200-467
- Conditions
- Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Implant Failed
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Kafrelsheikh UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 18 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 May 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 Mar 2025 (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 traditional ridge split technique might be performed simultaneously with implant placement, resulting in a shortened treatment time. However, this approach has the potential for serious complications, including buccal bone fracture, prolonged pain or paresthesia, and loss of bone height. Linear Micro-Perforation Osteotomy (LMPO) has emerged as a less invasive alternative, promoting natural bone expansion through controlled micro-perforations in the cortical bone, allowing for ridge widening without extensive grafting. However, the precision required for LMPO can be difficult to achieve manually, especially in anatomically complex or narrow ridge areas, leading to variability in outcomes and potential risks such as bone fractures or inadequate expansion.Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy, clinical, and radiological outcomes of the flapless AI-powered/computer-guided LMPO ridge split/expansion technique compared to the traditional LMPO ridge split/expansion method for lateral ridge reconstruction of mandibular horizontal ridge deficiencies.
Detailed description
In contemporary dentistry, the aim is to replace missing teeth with prosthetics or to remove diseased teeth from the patient and return them to normal in terms of shape, function, comfort, appearance, speech, and health. Why implant dentistry is different is the capacity to fulfill this objective despite atrophy, illness, or harm to the stomatognathic apparatus.
Implant-based dental rehabilitation of partly or completely edentulous areas has become a frequent procedure with consistent long-term outcomes in recent decades. Nevertheless, alveolar ridges are frequently impaired with horizontal inadequacy as a result of bone resorption, which has an impact on implant application.
The resorption of alveolar bone is a common sequelae of tooth loss and presents a clinical problem for implant placement. Implants must be placed with at least 1 mm of bone on the buccal and lingual aspects to maintain crestal bone levels.
Narrow edentulous ridges less than 5 mm wide present a challenge to the clinician for implant placement. Hence, lateral bone augmentation procedures are necessary to overcome maxillary and mandibular bone deficiencies. These procedures involve the use of bone augmentation, such as guided bone regeneration (GBR), bone block (autogenous or non-autogenous), and conventional onlay/inlay graft. Those procedures have many drawbacks such as longer healing time (6-9 months) for adequate bone regeneration before implant placement, the possibility of membrane exposure, an increased risk of infection, high cost, and rapid graft resorption; thus leading to inadequate bone regeneration or loss of the newly formed bone.
Based on previous knowledge, ridge split/expansion was introduced as an alternative to treat the width insufficiency of alveolar ridges with specific indications. The basic procedure includes a sagittal osteotomy in the center of the edentulous ridge, where the two cortical plates are expanded to increase the width and thereby simultaneous implant insertion with an appropriate diameter could be achieved.
Due to double cellularity and double vascularity gained from the lateral bony plate, bone healing, and regeneration tendency were significantly improved without the need for bone graft or membrane. A shorter treatment period, no need for donor sites, and the possibility of simultaneous implant placement are among the merits of ridge splitting over different augmentation techniques.
For successful ridge split with simultaneous implantation, the alveolar ridge width should be 3 mm or more with at least 1 mm trabecular bone between the cortical plates.
The splitting could be performed using the chisel and mallet, the surgical disc, ultra-fine fissure burs, and recently the piezoelectric surgical devices and the electromagnetic mallet. Osteotomes, chisels, bone spreaders, and engine-driven expanders were utilized for Ridge expansion.
The traditional ridge split technique might be performed simultaneously with implant placement, resulting in a shortened treatment time. However, this approach has the potential for serious complications, including buccal bone fracture, prolonged pain or paresthesia, and loss of bone height. On the other hand, the staged approach has been proposed with splitting and expansion performed followed by implant placement after a 3-week healing interval to allow re-establishment of the blood supply to the surgical site.
Linear Micro-Perforation Osteotomy (LMPO) has emerged as a less invasive alternative, promoting natural bone expansion through controlled micro-perforations in the cortical bone, allowing for ridge widening without extensive grafting. However, the precision required for LMPO can be difficult to achieve manually, especially in anatomically complex or narrow ridge areas, leading to variability in outcomes and potential risks such as bone fractures or inadequate expansion.
Computer-guided technology presents an opportunity to enhance LMPO by providing a structured, pre-planned guide for split-osteotomy and expansion. Utilizing 3D imaging data, a computer-guided splint can be custom-fabricated to fit each patient's unique anatomy, offering unparalleled accuracy in osteotomy execution and minimizing the risk of error. Additionally, performing LMPO without flap elevation with the assistance of this guided splint further reduces surgical trauma, preserves periosteal blood supply, and promotes faster healing, making it a more patient-friendly option.
Limited clinical data are available about LMPO. Our study aims to evaluate the efficacy, clinical, and radiological outcomes of the flapless AI-powered/computer-guided LMPO ridge split/expansion technique compared to the traditional LMPO ridge split/expansion method for lateral ridge reconstruction of mandibular horizontal ridge deficiencies.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| study group I | Experimental | Procedure: Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingridge split and expansion with free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy approach with simultaneous implant placement |
| study group II | Experimental | Procedure: AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingridge split and expansion with AI-assisted/computer-guided (linear micro perforation osteotomy approach with simultaneous implant placement) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 40 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients presenting with narrow alveolar ridge that requires dental implantation.
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- • Uncontrolled diabetes.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingAlso: Free-hand crestal ridge splitting expansion after linear micro perforation osteotomy will be performed using electromagnetic malletAI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting | Procedure or surgery | study group I |
| AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splittingAI-assisted/computer-guided crestal ridge splitting expansion after linear micro perforation osteotomy will be performed using electromagnetic mallet | Procedure or surgery | study group II |
Primary outcome
ridge width
Time frame: 12-months
The width of the alveolar bone will be measured again using CBCT
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 7 Jul 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. sharing upon request
Related trials for Alveolar Bone Loss
Recruiting
Effect of Collagen Membrane on Ridge Preservation
Dehiscence, Tooth Extraction
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
Enrolling by invitation
Ti-Mesh Frame Comparison for Alveolar Bone Augmentation
Tooth Loss
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Free-hand linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting and AI-assisted/computer-guided linear micro perforation osteotomy and ridge splitting in people with Alveolar Bone Loss and Dental Implant Failed, run by Kafrelsheikh University at 1 site in Egypt.
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 7 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 7 Jul 2026. 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 Egypt. 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?
ridge width (time frame: 12-months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 7 Jul 2026.