Ridge AugmentationNCT06891261
One Stage Ridge Splitting Using 2 Different Techniques in Maxilla
A study testing Piezo Surgery. and Bone Discs. in people with Ridge Augmentation and Bone Augmentation, run by Cairo University at 1 site in Egypt.
Trial summary
The selected patients will be informed of the nature of the research work and informed consent will be obtained. Patients of both groups will be subjected to CBCT. Intra operative procedures (for both groups) followed by CBCT will be taken for every patient after 4 months. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 48 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Ridge Augmentation, Bone Augmentation
- What is being tested?
- Piezo Surgery. and Bone Discs.
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteEgypt
- Study dates
- 26 Feb 2025to 31 Oct 2025
- 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 20 to 48 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients with maxilla residual alveolar bone height not less than 8 mm.
- Alveolar bone width from 5mm to 3mm.
- Both genders.
- At least single missing tooth.
- Previous failed implants.
- Tapered or cylinder cross sectioned alveolar bone defect pattern.
Who cannot join
- Heavy smokers more than 20 cigarettes per day.
- Patients with bone disease that may affect normal healing, example; hyperparathyroidism.
- Patients had radiotherapy and chemotherapy in head and neck.
- Patients had neoplasms in sites to be grafted.
- Patients with Metabolic diseases uncontrolled diabetic patients, Glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c) more than 7 mg\dl.
- Pregnant females.
Show all 13Show fewer
- Patients with Para functional habits, apprehensive and non-cooperative.
- Bone pathology related to the site to be grafted.
- Psychological problems, stress situation (socially or professionally), emotional instability, and unrealistic patients' expectations.
- Intraoral soft and hard tissue pathology.
- Systemic condition that contraindicates implant placement.
- Under the age of 18 years.
- Hourglass defects or defects with bone concavities and or undercuts.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Egypt1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Faculty of Dentistry Cairo University
Cairo, 11553
Ahmed M. Youssef, Lecturer, +201067941236 ext. +20, ahmed.youssef@dentistry.cu.edu.eg
About this study
Official title: Evaluation of Endosseous Implants in One Stage Ridge Splitting Using the Conventional Technique Versus the Use of Piezo Surgery in the Maxilla
- The selected patients will be informed of the nature of the research work and informed consent will be obtained.
- Patients of both groups will be subjected to CBCT.
- Intra operative procedures (for both groups) followed by CBCT will be taken for every patient after 4 months.
- Infiltration local anesthesia will be given to the patient (Articaine 4% 1:100 000 epinephrine)
Both the study and control group will receive:
Read more
- In Recipient site, full thickness mucoperiosteal flap pyramidal flap, reflection using mucoperiosteal elevator.
- The defective site is reevaluated.
- Flap advancement inorder to allow tension free flap closure.
- In the Study group: Piezo surgery bone inserts is used to cut crestal osteotomies.
- In the Control group: Bone discs diameter is used.
- Followed by, the use of bone chisels.
- The point and pilot implant drills are used followed by bone expanders. Based on the preexisting bone, the defect morphology and bone quality. The implant is submerged below the alveolar crest to compensate for crestal bone resorption.
- Following partial immobilization of the buccal bone segment either book or island pattern. The fixture is inserted submerged below the alveolar bone crest.
Followed by bone smoothening and roundation under external saline irrigation at recommended speed of 38000rpm and gear ratio 1:1 calibrated on fesiodespenser.
- Xenogenic bone particle size of 0.5 mm to 1mm is going to be condensed into the dead space.
- Recheck adequate flap advancement to allow tension free closure.
- Double line closure using horizontal mattress followed by interrupted sutures to allow contact area and wound edge eversion.
Read the detailed description
- The selected patients will be informed of the nature of the research work and informed consent will be obtained then randomized in equal proportions between control group conventional ridge splitting and study ridge splitting using piezo surgery.
- Patients of both groups will be subjected to CBCT (diagnostic for upper arch), diagnostic wax-up and stent fabrication.
- Intra operative procedures (for both groups) followed by CBCT will be taken for every patient after 4 months.
- Scrubbing and draping of the patient will be carried out in a standard fashion for intra oral procedures.
- Infiltration local anesthesia will be given to the patient (Articaine 4% 1:100 000 epinephrine)
Both the study and control group will receive:
- In Recipient site, using 15C blade on Bard Parker handle incision of full thickness mucoperiosteal flap inorder to obtain, three-line pyramidal flap, reflection using mucoperiosteal elevator molt 9.
- The defective site is reevaluated after its primary evaluation on CBCT using UNC periodontal probe.
- Flap advancement using periosteal releasing incision inorder to allow later tension free flap closure.
- In the Study group: Piezo surgery bone inserts is used to cut crestal osteotomy in the center of the alveolar bone ridge bucco-lingual traversing the compact bone into the spongiosa Followed by two semi vertical osteotomies at least 1.5mm away from the adjacent teeth.
- In the Control group: Bone discs diameter 7mm mounted on contra angled 1:1 is used to cut crestal osteotomy in the center of the alveolar bone ridge bucco-lingual traversing the compact bone into the spongiosa Followed by two semi vertical osteotomies at least 1.5mm away from the adjacent teeth using bone discs diameter 6.5mm mounted on external irrigation straight hand piece.
- First, the spatula bone chisels are used to make sure of extension of osteotomies into the spongy bone in addition to, adequate free of the cut corners, followed by sequential use of tapered bi-angled bone chisels and hammering with bone mallet 3mm shorter than the length of the proposed implant to gain adequate 1ry stability with concurrent support of the buccal plate of bone.
- The point and pilot implant drills are used followed by the sequential use of bone expanders diameters 2.6, 3, 3.4, 3.8 to place an implant of diameter 3.7 or 4.1mm. Based on the preexisting bone, the defect morphology and bone quality. The implant is submerged about 2mm to 3mm below the alveolar crest to compensate for crestal bone resorption.
- Following partial immobilization of the buccal bone segment either book or island pattern. The fixture is inserted submerged below the alveolar bone crest by 2mm to 3mm. Followed by bone smoothening and roundation using large round diamond stone mounted on straight hand piece with external saline irrigation at recommended speed of 38000rpm and gear ratio 1:1 calibrated on fesiodespenser. To avoid soft tissue irritation.
- Xenogenic bone particle size of 0.5 mm to 1mm is going to be condensed into the dead space. To act as a scaffold for the formation of autogenous bone.
- Recheck adequate flap advancement by visualizing passive flap approximation, to allow tension free closure.
- Double line closure using horizontal mattress placed 5mm away from flap margins followed by interrupted sutures on top to allow contact area which is preferred to point contact and wound edge eversion.
- Conditions
- Ridge Augmentation, Bone Augmentation
- Being tested
- Piezo Surgery., Bone Discs.
- Keywords
- ridge augmentation, One stage ridge splitting in maxilla., Piezo Surgery
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Piezo Surgery.Device
Piezotome woodpecker®: Surgic touch.
Bone Discs.Procedure or surgery
bone discs mounted on staight hand piece and contra angled 1:1 gear ratio.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Study Group A: Piezo Surgery. | Active comparator | Straight and angled bone inserts were utilized. Receives: Device: Piezo Surgery. |
| Control Group B: Conventional Technique. | Active comparator | using bone discs of 7mm diameter mounted on contra angled 1:1 and 6.5mm diameter bone discs mounted on 1:1 external irrigation straight hand piece. Receives: Procedure: Bone Discs. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Bone Quality of bone gain.
Measured using linear measurements from CBCT in millimeters.
Measured: At 4 months from ridge augmentation.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Soft Tissue Dehiscence.
Exposure of the augmented site. Written Binary Numerical.
Measured: Baseline 1st Week.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Mar 2025
- Study start26 Feb 2025
- Primary completion30 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Oct 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Ridge AugmentationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cairo UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohannad Ahmed Ismail, Cairo University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06891261
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 00-0001-6142-0568
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 16 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 16 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Spin-Neto R, Landazuri Del Barrio RA, Pereira LA, Marcantonio RA, Marcantonio E, Marcantonio E Jr. Clinical similarities and histological diversity comparing fresh frozen onlay bone blocks allografts and autografts in human maxillary reconstruction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):490-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00382.x. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
PubMed 21834864Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E 3rd, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: a clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;40(6):525-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.09.004. Epub 2011 Nov 9.
PubMed 22075326Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):654-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032. Epub 2011 Dec 3.
PubMed 22137760AlGhamdi AS. Post-surgical complications of symphyseal block graft with and without soft tissue grafting. Saudi Med J. 2013 Jun;34(6):609-15.
PubMed 23756926Monje A, Monje F, Chan HL, Suarez F, Villanueva-Alcojol L, Garcia-Nogales A, Wang HL. Comparison of microstructures between block grafts from the mandibular ramus and calvarium for horizontal bone augmentation of the maxilla: a case series study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;33(6):e153-61. doi: 10.11607/prd.1664.
PubMed 24116370Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 1;20(2):e251-8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20194.
PubMed 25662543Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Mar 1;21(2):e241-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20938.
PubMed 26827063Khoury F: Augmentation of severe bony defects with intraoral bone grafts: biological approach and long-term results J Oral Maxillo Fac Surg 2017Volume 46, Supplement 1, Pages 26-27.
Claudino M, Julio C L, Luis E M, Bernardo M, Fernando G, tomographic evaluation of atrophic maxilla rehabilitated with autogenous and xenogeneic block grafts. Journal of Research in Dentistry 2017, 4(4):112-117.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of Endosseous Implants in One Stage Ridge Splitting Using the Conventional Technique Versus the Use of Piezo Surgery in the Maxilla
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06891261
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 00-0001-6142-0568
- Conditions
- Ridge Augmentation, Bone Augmentation
- Keywords
- ridge augmentation, One stage ridge splitting in maxilla., Piezo Surgery
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 26 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jul 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 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 selected patients will be informed of the nature of the research work and informed consent will be obtained.
- Patients of both groups will be subjected to CBCT.
- Intra operative procedures (for both groups) followed by CBCT will be taken for every patient after 4 months.
- Infiltration local anesthesia will be given to the patient (Articaine 4% 1:100 000 epinephrine)
Both the study and control group will receive:
- In Recipient site, full thickness mucoperiosteal flap pyramidal flap, reflection using mucoperiosteal elevator.
- The defective site is reevaluated.
- Flap advancement inorder to allow tension free flap closure.
- In the Study group: Piezo surgery bone inserts is used to cut crestal osteotomies.
- In the Control group: Bone discs diameter is used.
- Followed by, the use of bone chisels.
- The point and pilot implant drills are used followed by bone expanders. Based on the preexisting bone, the defect morphology and bone quality. The implant is submerged below the alveolar crest to compensate for crestal bone resorption.
- Following partial immobilization of the buccal bone segment either book or island pattern. The fixture is inserted submerged below the alveolar bone crest.
Followed by bone smoothening and roundation under external saline irrigation at recommended speed of 38000rpm and gear ratio 1:1 calibrated on fesiodespenser.
- Xenogenic bone particle size of 0.5 mm to 1mm is going to be condensed into the dead space.
- Recheck adequate flap advancement to allow tension free closure.
- Double line closure using horizontal mattress followed by interrupted sutures to allow contact area and wound edge eversion.
Detailed description
- The selected patients will be informed of the nature of the research work and informed consent will be obtained then randomized in equal proportions between control group conventional ridge splitting and study ridge splitting using piezo surgery.
- Patients of both groups will be subjected to CBCT (diagnostic for upper arch), diagnostic wax-up and stent fabrication.
- Intra operative procedures (for both groups) followed by CBCT will be taken for every patient after 4 months.
- Scrubbing and draping of the patient will be carried out in a standard fashion for intra oral procedures.
- Infiltration local anesthesia will be given to the patient (Articaine 4% 1:100 000 epinephrine)
Both the study and control group will receive:
- In Recipient site, using 15C blade on Bard Parker handle incision of full thickness mucoperiosteal flap inorder to obtain, three-line pyramidal flap, reflection using mucoperiosteal elevator molt 9.
- The defective site is reevaluated after its primary evaluation on CBCT using UNC periodontal probe.
- Flap advancement using periosteal releasing incision inorder to allow later tension free flap closure.
- In the Study group: Piezo surgery bone inserts is used to cut crestal osteotomy in the center of the alveolar bone ridge bucco-lingual traversing the compact bone into the spongiosa Followed by two semi vertical osteotomies at least 1.5mm away from the adjacent teeth.
- In the Control group: Bone discs diameter 7mm mounted on contra angled 1:1 is used to cut crestal osteotomy in the center of the alveolar bone ridge bucco-lingual traversing the compact bone into the spongiosa Followed by two semi vertical osteotomies at least 1.5mm away from the adjacent teeth using bone discs diameter 6.5mm mounted on external irrigation straight hand piece.
- First, the spatula bone chisels are used to make sure of extension of osteotomies into the spongy bone in addition to, adequate free of the cut corners, followed by sequential use of tapered bi-angled bone chisels and hammering with bone mallet 3mm shorter than the length of the proposed implant to gain adequate 1ry stability with concurrent support of the buccal plate of bone.
- The point and pilot implant drills are used followed by the sequential use of bone expanders diameters 2.6, 3, 3.4, 3.8 to place an implant of diameter 3.7 or 4.1mm. Based on the preexisting bone, the defect morphology and bone quality. The implant is submerged about 2mm to 3mm below the alveolar crest to compensate for crestal bone resorption.
- Following partial immobilization of the buccal bone segment either book or island pattern. The fixture is inserted submerged below the alveolar bone crest by 2mm to 3mm. Followed by bone smoothening and roundation using large round diamond stone mounted on straight hand piece with external saline irrigation at recommended speed of 38000rpm and gear ratio 1:1 calibrated on fesiodespenser. To avoid soft tissue irritation.
- Xenogenic bone particle size of 0.5 mm to 1mm is going to be condensed into the dead space. To act as a scaffold for the formation of autogenous bone.
- Recheck adequate flap advancement by visualizing passive flap approximation, to allow tension free closure.
- Double line closure using horizontal mattress placed 5mm away from flap margins followed by interrupted sutures on top to allow contact area which is preferred to point contact and wound edge eversion.
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 A: Piezo Surgery. | Active comparator | Device: Piezo Surgery.Straight and angled bone inserts were utilized. |
| Control Group B: Conventional Technique. | Active comparator | Procedure: Bone Discs.using bone discs of 7mm diameter mounted on contra angled 1:1 and 6.5mm diameter bone discs mounted on 1:1 external irrigation straight hand piece. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 48 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients with maxilla residual alveolar bone height not less than 8 mm.
- Alveolar bone width from 5mm to 3mm.
- Both genders.
- At least single missing tooth.
- Previous failed implants.
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Heavy smokers more than 20 cigarettes per day.
- Patients with bone disease that may affect normal healing, example; hyperparathyroidism.
- Patients had radiotherapy and chemotherapy in head and neck.
- Patients had neoplasms in sites to be grafted.
- Patients with Metabolic diseases uncontrolled diabetic patients, Glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c) more than 7 mg\dl.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Piezo Surgery.Piezotome woodpecker®: Surgic touch. | Device | Study Group A: Piezo Surgery. |
| Bone Discs.bone discs mounted on staight hand piece and contra angled 1:1 gear ratio. | Procedure or surgery | Control Group B: Conventional Technique. |
Primary outcome
Bone Quality of bone gain.
Time frame: At 4 months from ridge augmentation.
Measured using linear measurements from CBCT in millimeters.
1 secondary outcome
Soft Tissue Dehiscence.
Time frame: Baseline 1st Week.
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 16 Jul 2025.
- Background: PubMed 21834864Spin-Neto R, Landazuri Del Barrio RA, Pereira LA, Marcantonio RA, Marcantonio E, Marcantonio E Jr. Clinical similarities and histological diversity comparing fresh frozen onlay bone blocks allografts and autografts in human maxillary reconstruction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Aug;15(4):490-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00382.x. Epub 2011 Aug 11.
- Background: PubMed 22075326Acocella A, Bertolai R, Ellis E 3rd, Nissan J, Sacco R. Maxillary alveolar ridge reconstruction with monocortical fresh-frozen bone blocks: a clinical, histological and histomorphometric study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Sep;40(6):525-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.09.004. Epub 2011 Nov 9.
- Background: PubMed 22137760Dasmah A, Thor A, Ekestubbe A, Sennerby L, Rasmusson L. Particulate vs. block bone grafts: three-dimensional changes in graft volume after reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla, a 2-year radiographic follow-up. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012 Dec;40(8):654-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.10.032. Epub 2011 Dec 3.
- Background: PubMed 23756926AlGhamdi AS. Post-surgical complications of symphyseal block graft with and without soft tissue grafting. Saudi Med J. 2013 Jun;34(6):609-15.
- Background: PubMed 24116370Monje A, Monje F, Chan HL, Suarez F, Villanueva-Alcojol L, Garcia-Nogales A, Wang HL. Comparison of microstructures between block grafts from the mandibular ramus and calvarium for horizontal bone augmentation of the maxilla: a case series study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;33(6):e153-61. doi: 10.11607/prd.1664.
- Background: PubMed 25662543Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015 Mar 1;20(2):e251-8. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20194.
- Background: PubMed 26827063Reininger D, Cobo-Vazquez C, Monteserin-Matesanz M, Lopez-Quiles J. Complications in the use of the mandibular body, ramus and symphysis as donor sites in bone graft surgery. A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2016 Mar 1;21(2):e241-9. doi: 10.4317/medoral.20938.
- BackgroundKhoury F: Augmentation of severe bony defects with intraoral bone grafts: biological approach and long-term results J Oral Maxillo Fac Surg 2017Volume 46, Supplement 1, Pages 26-27.
- BackgroundClaudino M, Julio C L, Luis E M, Bernardo M, Fernando G, tomographic evaluation of atrophic maxilla rehabilitated with autogenous and xenogeneic block grafts. Journal of Research in Dentistry 2017, 4(4):112-117.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Ridge Augmentation
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
Active, not recruiting
Vallomix Socket Preservation Study
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation
Not yet recruiting
Shell Technique for Implant Site Development
Ridge Augmentation, Ridge Deficiency
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Subepithelial Connective Tissue Graft as an Autogenous Barrier Membrane for Hard and Soft Tissue Augmentation in Horizontally Deficient Ridges During Delayed Implant Placement
Horizontally Deficient Alveolar Ridges, Hard and Soft Tissue Augmentation During Delayed Implant Placement
Not yet recruiting
Autogenous Sticky Bone Plus Platelet-rich Fibrin Membrane Versus Xenograft With Collagen Membrane for Posterior Atrophic Mandible
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 Piezo Surgery. and Bone Discs. in people with Ridge Augmentation and Bone Augmentation, run by Cairo 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 13 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 16 Jul 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 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?
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 Mohannad A. Ismail, MSc. (01222968444 ext. +20, mohannadahmed@hotmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Bone Quality of bone gain. (time frame: At 4 months from ridge augmentation.). 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 NCT06891261, which also lists 9 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 16 Jul 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.