Dental Implants, Single-toothARP versus SHNCT07001345
Alveolar Ridge Preservation Versus Spontaneous Healing
A study testing Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction in people with Dental Implants, Single-tooth and Alveolar Ridge Preservation, run by Erasmus Medical Center at 1 site in Netherlands.
Trial summary
Rationale: To determine the effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) versus spontaneous healing (SH) in large buccal bone defects in the posterior mandible. Objective: To evaluate whether ARP using a xenograft (XG) (Cerabone plus) or an allograft (AG) (Maxgraft granules) covered by a membrane (Jason membrane)… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Dental Implants, Single-tooth, Alveolar Ridge Preservation, Guided Bone Regeneration
- What is being tested?
- Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 66 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNetherlands
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2025to 1 Jun 2035
- 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
- A minimum age of 18 years old
- In need for extraction of a single (pre)molar in the mandible that needs to be replaced by an implant
- At least one adjacent tooth
- A buccal bone defect after extraction of 50% or more
Who cannot join
- Active periodontal disease
- Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus
- History of or current chemotherapy or radiation in the head and neck area
- History of or current use of medication related to osteonecrosis of the jaw
- Heavy and moderate smokers (>5 cigarettes a day)
- Unable to maintain basic oral health (physical and/or mental)
- Pregnancy (in case of pregnancy, the treatment is postponed until after the delivery)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Netherlands1 site
Erasmus MC
Rotterdam, South Holland, 3015GD
A. Jue, (010) 704 01 27, a.jue@erasmusmc.nl
About this study
Official title: Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) Versus Spontaneous Healing in Large Buccal Bone Defects After Tooth Extraction in the Posterior Mandible
Rationale: To determine the effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) versus spontaneous healing (SH) in large buccal bone defects in the posterior mandible.
Objective: To evaluate whether ARP using a xenograft (XG) (Cerabone plus) or an allograft (AG) (Maxgraft granules) covered by a membrane (Jason membrane) reduces the need for additional bone augmentation either prior to or during implant placement in the posterior mandible compared to spontaneous healing Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study with 10-year follow-up.
Read more
Study population:
Inclusion criteria: patients are 18 years or older and in need for extraction of a (pre)molar in the posterior mandible with at least one adjacent tooth and a buccal bone defect of >50%.
Exclusion criteria: the presence of active periodontal disease, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, a history of or current use of chemotherapy or radiation in the head and neck area, history of or current use of medication related to osteonecrosis of the jaw, smoking (> 5 cigarettes a day, disability (physical and/or mental), making the patient unable to maintain basic oral health or follow the study protocol, pregnancy (in case of pregnancy, the treatment is postponed until after the delivery).
Intervention (if applicable): Atraumatic extraction of a (pre)molar in the posterior mandible will be performed. Patients will then be included based on the dimensions of the buccal bone defect (buccal bone defect of >50%). 66 patients will be randomly divided in either the XG group, the AG group or the SH group (control). In the ARP groups (XG and AG), following tooth extraction, ARP will be performed using either a XG (Cerabone plus) or an AG (Maxgraft granules), both covered by a membrane (Jason membrane). In the control group, the alveolus will be left for spontaneous healing, following tooth extraction. After 4-6 months, a cone bean computed tomography (CBCT) scan will be performed to determine the possibility of implant placement with or without additional augmentation. Implant placement will be performed in all groups with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).
Main study parameters/endpoints: Frequency of additional augmentation at implant placement.
Read the detailed description
Extraction of the teeth in the posterior region of the mandible may be an indication for the placement of dental implants. However, after extraction of the teeth, the alveolar ridge undergoes changes due to resorption. Resorption is most pronounced on the buccal side and might complicate implant placement as is could lead to proximity issues with the inferior alveolaris nerve of the mandible.
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is commonly performed technique aimed at preserving available bone after tooth extraction. It facilitates delayed implant placement, reducing morbidity and providing optimal esthetic outcomes for implant placement. This procedure is performed using autogenous bone grafts, bone substitutes such as xenografts or allografts or a mixture of both. Also, membranes can be used to direct the growth of new bone.
A thin buccal bone wall is an indicator for bone loss that may compromise the integrity of the buccal bone and lead to biologic and esthetic complications. When the buccal bone wall has a width of < 1.5mm, it is considered an indication for ARP.
ARP is found to be effective in reducing bone loss and facilitating implant placement after extraction in the anterior region and for multi-rooted sides. However, most available evidence including RCTs, involves patients with at least 50% of buccal bone intact. Consequently, it is uncertain whether the efficacy ARP is also applicable in situations involving damaged sockets (buccal bone loss >50%).
- Being tested
- Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Alveolar Ridge ReconstructionProcedure or surgery
Alveolar ridge preservation with either xenograft of allograft material
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| ARP with xenograft | Experimental | ARP with xenograft (Cerabone ® plus, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) covered by a native collagen membrane (Jason ® membrane, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after extraction). Receives: Procedure: Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction |
| ARP with allograft | Experimental | ARP with a freeze dried bone allograft (Maxgraft®, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) covered by a native collagen membrane (Jason ® membrane, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after extraction). Receives: Procedure: Alveolar Ridge Reconstruction |
| Spontaneous healing | No intervention | spontaneous healing and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after tooth extraction). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
The frequency of additional bone augmentation at implant placement.
The frequency of additional bone augmentation at implant placement will be assessed during implant placement.
Measured: During implant placement
Secondary outcomes (16)
Implant survival
Implant survival is achieved if there is no presence of any mobility of the individual implant and/or any situation dictating implant removal.
Measured: From the moment of implant placement until 10 years of loading
Profilometric outcome measure
Volumetric changes of the soft tissue
Measured: after intake, extraction, implant placement, placement of the final crown (after 2 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years)
Prosthetic success
Prosthetic complications will be scored based on the modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria assessing framework fracture, veneering fracture, occlusal wear, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, cementation gap and patient satisfaction (Bayne \& Schmalz, 2005). Suprastructures scoring delta will be scored as a failure. A suprastructure is scored as successful if all aspects scored only in the alpha or bravo categories (Pol et al., 2022).
Measured: from placement of the final crown until 10 years of loading
Histological outcome measures
Histological analysis
Micro-computed tomography (μCT) analysis
Measured: After implant placement
Subjective Clinician-reported outcome measures related to the clinician's perception
Clinician questionnaire using an 11-point numeric scale assessing difficulty of the procedure. The lowest score is 0 which indicates extremely easy, the highest score is 10 which indicates extremely hard.
Measured: After the surgical procedures (extraction and implant placement)
PROMS
Patient questionnaire based on a visual analog scales (VAS) score (0-10) assessing participant satisfaction evaluation during the study will be evaluated that will focus on satisfaction and impact of the surgical procedure and the aesthetic and functional result of the final crown. Score 0 indicates 'least agree' and score 10 indicates 'fully agree'.
Measured: at intake, after extraction, after implant placement, and 2 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Chair Time
Chair time in minutes
Measured: At all surgical procedures (extraction, ARP, implant placement)
Costs
Costs in euros
Measured: After 10 years of loading
Implant success
Absence of mobility, absence of persistent subjective complaints (pain, foreign body sensation and/or dysesthesia), absence of recurrent peri-implant infection with suppuration, absence of a continuous radiolucency around the implant, the annual vertical bone loss should not exceed 0.2 mm after the first year of service which should not exceed 1.5 mm, no pocket probing depth (PPD) of 5 mm or more with bleeding on probing (BOP) and no PPD of >5 mm.
Measured: From one year after implant placement until 10 years of loading
Keratinized mucosal width (KMW)
The width of the attached mucosa on the buccal side measured in the middle of the crown
Measured: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown.
Pocket probing depth (PPD)
The distance between the marginal gingival border and the tip of the pocket probe inserted against the implant (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiopalatal, palatal, distopalatal)
Measured: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Bleeding on probing (BOP)
Dichotomously (yes/no) at the mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiopalatal, palatal, distopalatal side of the implant.
Measured: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Surgical complications (swelling, dehiscence, haemorrhage, infection)
swelling (0= no visible oedema, 1 =slight oedema, 2= moderate oedema, 3= severe oedema), mucosal dehiscence (no dehiscence /small dehiscence of less than 2 mm/extensive dehiscence of more than 2mm) haemorrhage (absent/present) and infection (absent/present).
Measured: 2 weeks post extraction and implant placement
Marginal bone levels (MBL)
Changes in marginal bone level
Measured: Post implant placement and 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after placement of the final crown.
Volumetric changes of the bone
Volumetric changes of the bone in percentage
Measured: after extraction, before implant placement, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-NL)
Orofacial Esthetic Scale in Dutch(OES-NL) questionnaire assessing the esthetics of the teeth. Score 0 indicates very unsatisfied and score 10 indicates highly satisfied.
Measured: 2-4 weeks after placement, and 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after loading of the final crown
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Jun 2025
- Study start1 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Jun 2035 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Jun 2035 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dental Implants, Single-toothStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Erasmus Medical CenterThe 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
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Erasmus Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Justin Pijpe, Erasmus Medical Center
- Investigators
- J. Pijpe, Dr., MD, DDS, Principal investigator, Erasmus Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07001345
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NL-009366
- Acronym
- ARP versus SH
- Status last verified
- May 2025
- First submitted
- 1 May 2025
- Last updated
- 3 Jun 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Avila-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 32050833Avila-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 30623987Monje A, Roccuzzo A, Buser D, Wang HL. Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Sep;34 Suppl 26:8-27. doi: 10.1111/clr.14177.
PubMed 37750522Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J Prosthet Dent. 1967 Jan;17(1):21-7. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(67)90046-7. No abstract available.
PubMed 5224784Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Dec;36(12):1048-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x.
PubMed 19929956Jonker BP, Strauss FJ, Naenni N, Jung RE, Wolvius EB, Pijpe J. Early implant placement with or without alveolar ridge preservation in single tooth gaps renders similar esthetic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures: One-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Sep;32(9):1041-1051. doi: 10.1111/clr.13796. Epub 2021 Jul 3.
PubMed 34129708Atieh MA, Alnaqbi M, Abdunabi F, Lin L, Alsabeeha NHM. Alveolar ridge preservation in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Sep;33(9):869-885. doi: 10.1111/clr.13975. Epub 2022 Jul 21.
PubMed 35818637Tonetti MS, Jung RE, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Cosyn J, Fickl S, Figuero E, Goldstein M, Graziani F, Madianos P, Molina A, Nart J, Salvi GE, Sanz-Martin I, Thoma D, Van Assche N, Vignoletti F. Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Jun;46 Suppl 21:183-194. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13131.
PubMed 31215112
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Jun 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Alveolar Ridge Preservation (ARP) Versus Spontaneous Healing in Large Buccal Bone Defects After Tooth Extraction in the Posterior Mandible
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07001345
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ARP versus SH / NL-009366
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Erasmus Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jun 2035 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Jun 2035 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Jun 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.
Rationale: To determine the effect of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) versus spontaneous healing (SH) in large buccal bone defects in the posterior mandible.
Objective: To evaluate whether ARP using a xenograft (XG) (Cerabone plus) or an allograft (AG) (Maxgraft granules) covered by a membrane (Jason membrane) reduces the need for additional bone augmentation either prior to or during implant placement in the posterior mandible compared to spontaneous healing Study design: Prospective randomized clinical study with 10-year follow-up.
Study population:
Inclusion criteria: patients are 18 years or older and in need for extraction of a (pre)molar in the posterior mandible with at least one adjacent tooth and a buccal bone defect of >50%.
Exclusion criteria: the presence of active periodontal disease, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, a history of or current use of chemotherapy or radiation in the head and neck area, history of or current use of medication related to osteonecrosis of the jaw, smoking (> 5 cigarettes a day, disability (physical and/or mental), making the patient unable to maintain basic oral health or follow the study protocol, pregnancy (in case of pregnancy, the treatment is postponed until after the delivery).
Intervention (if applicable): Atraumatic extraction of a (pre)molar in the posterior mandible will be performed. Patients will then be included based on the dimensions of the buccal bone defect (buccal bone defect of >50%). 66 patients will be randomly divided in either the XG group, the AG group or the SH group (control). In the ARP groups (XG and AG), following tooth extraction, ARP will be performed using either a XG (Cerabone plus) or an AG (Maxgraft granules), both covered by a membrane (Jason membrane). In the control group, the alveolus will be left for spontaneous healing, following tooth extraction. After 4-6 months, a cone bean computed tomography (CBCT) scan will be performed to determine the possibility of implant placement with or without additional augmentation. Implant placement will be performed in all groups with or without guided bone regeneration (GBR).
Main study parameters/endpoints: Frequency of additional augmentation at implant placement.
Detailed description
Extraction of the teeth in the posterior region of the mandible may be an indication for the placement of dental implants. However, after extraction of the teeth, the alveolar ridge undergoes changes due to resorption. Resorption is most pronounced on the buccal side and might complicate implant placement as is could lead to proximity issues with the inferior alveolaris nerve of the mandible.
Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is commonly performed technique aimed at preserving available bone after tooth extraction. It facilitates delayed implant placement, reducing morbidity and providing optimal esthetic outcomes for implant placement. This procedure is performed using autogenous bone grafts, bone substitutes such as xenografts or allografts or a mixture of both. Also, membranes can be used to direct the growth of new bone.
A thin buccal bone wall is an indicator for bone loss that may compromise the integrity of the buccal bone and lead to biologic and esthetic complications. When the buccal bone wall has a width of < 1.5mm, it is considered an indication for ARP.
ARP is found to be effective in reducing bone loss and facilitating implant placement after extraction in the anterior region and for multi-rooted sides. However, most available evidence including RCTs, involves patients with at least 50% of buccal bone intact. Consequently, it is uncertain whether the efficacy ARP is also applicable in situations involving damaged sockets (buccal bone loss >50%).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| ARP with xenograft | Experimental | Procedure: Alveolar Ridge ReconstructionARP with xenograft (Cerabone ® plus, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) covered by a native collagen membrane (Jason ® membrane, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after extraction). |
| ARP with allograft | Experimental | Procedure: Alveolar Ridge ReconstructionARP with a freeze dried bone allograft (Maxgraft®, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) covered by a native collagen membrane (Jason ® membrane, Botiss Biomaterials GmbH, Zossen, Germany) and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after extraction). |
| Spontaneous healing | No intervention | –spontaneous healing and delayed implant placement (4-6 months after tooth extraction). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- A minimum age of 18 years old
- In need for extraction of a single (pre)molar in the mandible that needs to be replaced by an implant
- At least one adjacent tooth
- A buccal bone defect after extraction of 50% or more
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Active periodontal disease
- Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus
- History of or current chemotherapy or radiation in the head and neck area
- History of or current use of medication related to osteonecrosis of the jaw
- Heavy and moderate smokers (>5 cigarettes a day)
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 ReconstructionAlveolar ridge preservation with either xenograft of allograft material | Procedure or surgery | ARP with allograft, ARP with xenograft |
Primary outcome
The frequency of additional bone augmentation at implant placement.
Time frame: During implant placement
The frequency of additional bone augmentation at implant placement will be assessed during implant placement.
16 secondary outcomes
Implant survival
Time frame: From the moment of implant placement until 10 years of loading
Profilometric outcome measure
Time frame: after intake, extraction, implant placement, placement of the final crown (after 2 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years)
Prosthetic success
Time frame: from placement of the final crown until 10 years of loading
Histological outcome measures
Time frame: After implant placement
Subjective Clinician-reported outcome measures related to the clinician's perception
Time frame: After the surgical procedures (extraction and implant placement)
PROMS
Time frame: at intake, after extraction, after implant placement, and 2 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Chair Time
Time frame: At all surgical procedures (extraction, ARP, implant placement)
Costs
Time frame: After 10 years of loading
Implant success
Time frame: From one year after implant placement until 10 years of loading
Keratinized mucosal width (KMW)
Time frame: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown.
Pocket probing depth (PPD)
Time frame: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Bleeding on probing (BOP)
Time frame: 1-4 weeks, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Surgical complications (swelling, dehiscence, haemorrhage, infection)
Time frame: 2 weeks post extraction and implant placement
Marginal bone levels (MBL)
Time frame: Post implant placement and 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after placement of the final crown.
Volumetric changes of the bone
Time frame: after extraction, before implant placement, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 10 years after placement of the final crown
Orofacial Esthetic Scale (OES-NL)
Time frame: 2-4 weeks after placement, and 1, 3, 5 and 10 years after loading of the final crown
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 3 Jun 2025.
- 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 30623987Avila-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.
- Background: PubMed 37750522Monje A, Roccuzzo A, Buser D, Wang HL. Influence of buccal bone wall thickness on the peri-implant hard and soft tissue dimensional changes: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Sep;34 Suppl 26:8-27. doi: 10.1111/clr.14177.
- Background: PubMed 5224784Pietrokovski J, Massler M. Alveolar ridge resorption following tooth extraction. J Prosthet Dent. 1967 Jan;17(1):21-7. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(67)90046-7. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 19929956Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Dec;36(12):1048-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01482.x.
- Background: PubMed 34129708Jonker BP, Strauss FJ, Naenni N, Jung RE, Wolvius EB, Pijpe J. Early implant placement with or without alveolar ridge preservation in single tooth gaps renders similar esthetic, clinical and patient-reported outcome measures: One-year results of a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Sep;32(9):1041-1051. doi: 10.1111/clr.13796. Epub 2021 Jul 3.
- Background: PubMed 35818637Atieh MA, Alnaqbi M, Abdunabi F, Lin L, Alsabeeha NHM. Alveolar ridge preservation in extraction sockets of periodontally compromised teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Sep;33(9):869-885. doi: 10.1111/clr.13975. Epub 2022 Jul 21.
- Background: PubMed 31215112Tonetti MS, Jung RE, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Cosyn J, Fickl S, Figuero E, Goldstein M, Graziani F, Madianos P, Molina A, Nart J, Salvi GE, Sanz-Martin I, Thoma D, Van Assche N, Vignoletti F. Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Jun;46 Suppl 21:183-194. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13131.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Dental Implants, Single-tooth
Not yet recruiting
Safety Assessment of Placing a Single Dental Implant Without Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Simple Cases: A Pilot Study
Tooth Loss and Rehabillitation, Dental Implant Failure
Active, not recruiting
L-PRF Block vs Composite Graft for Horizontal Ridge Augmentation
Alveolar Ridge Resorption After Extraction, Alveolar Bone Loss
Not yet recruiting
Immediate vs Conventional Loading With Different Crown Materials on Immediately Placed Single Implants
Partial Edentulism, Dental Implant
Not yet recruiting
Do Immediate Digital Workflows Increase Patient Value?
Dental Implant, Implant Therapy
Active, not recruiting
Enhancing Soft Tissues Around Inserted Implants by Two Different Methods
Missing Teeth
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.
J. Pijpe, Dr., MD, DDS principal investigator
Erasmus Medical Center
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 Reconstruction in people with Dental Implants, Single-tooth and Alveolar Ridge Preservation, run by Erasmus Medical Center at 1 site in Netherlands.
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 4 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: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Jun 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 Netherlands. 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 A. Jue ((010) 704 01 27, a.jue@erasmusmc.nl), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
The frequency of additional bone augmentation at implant placement. (time frame: During implant placement). 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 NCT07001345, which also lists 8 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 3 Jun 2025.