Mandibular DiseasesNCT07338136
Computer Guided Split Thickness Versus Full Thickness Flap Buccal Bone Lid Approach in Hard Mandibular Pathosis
A study testing computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in people with Mandibular Diseases and Guided Surgery, run by Cairo University.
Trial summary
Full thickness Buccal bone lid approach is well known and well reported technique with a superiority on preserving bone volume and better bone healing especially when done using piezoelectrical devices when compared to conventional technique for management of mandibular pathosis, however periosteum disturbance have a… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 40 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Mandibular Diseases, Guided Surgery, Guided Surgery Accuracy
- What is being tested?
- computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 26 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Feb 2026to Apr 2027
- 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 to 40 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- No sex predilection.
- Age: 18 to 40
- mandibular intra-bony hard pathosis with a diameter ≥1cm with a buccal cortex thickness ≥1mm
Who cannot join
- Systemic or local disease/ condition that could affect bone healing
- Diabetics
- patients on systemic corticosteroid
- chemotherapy
- radiotherapy
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Computer Guided Split Thickness Versus Full Thickness Flap Buccal Bone Lid Approach in Hard Mandibular Pathosis: Randomized Control Trial RCT
- Full thickness Buccal bone lid approach is well known and well reported technique with a superiority on preserving bone volume and better bone healing especially when done using piezoelectrical devices when compared to conventional technique for management of mandibular pathosis, however periosteum disturbance have a negative role regarding vascularity and bone healing, by comparing the split thickness VS full thickness flap design with buccal bone lid approach, this study will highlight if the periosteum preserved attached to the lid improve the healing on mandibular bony pathosis.
- Aim of the study: determine the effect of split thickness flap vs full thickness flap using a guided bone lid in hard mandibular pathosis in term of bone healing.
Read the detailed description
Mandibular cysts, tumors, and impacted teeth are common pathosis that affect the oral and maxillofacial region, causing bone resorption, swelling, facial asymmetry, infection, and influence quality of life. Such pathosis requires its removal surgically for the preservation of mandibular structure and to avoid complex complications.
Conventional technique for removal of these pathosis requires excessive bone removal with limited accessibility and carries a high possibility of injury to vital structures. On the other hand, the buccal bone lid technique, especially when combined with piezoelectrical devices, demonstrates superiority in preserving vital structures, improving visibility, and enhancing bone healing.
The buccal bone lid acts as a barrier against soft tissue invasion and a reservoir for osteoblasts, that's why it is considered a technique for guided bone regeneration.
Computer-guided surgery and 3d printing guides are essential tools in managing oral and maxillofacial lesion providing patient-specific solutions with high accuracy and predictable outcomes.
A scoping review identified a gap of knowledge regarding the effect of computer-guided surgery in the buccal bone lid technique.
The periosteum is primarily structured by two layers: a superficial outer fibrous layer composed of collagen fibers, elastic fibers, and fibroblasts, and an inner cambium layer rich in fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and a specific type of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells known as periosteal skeletal stem cells (P-SSCs) Shi et al. had reported that P-SSCs have been shown to exhibit pluripotency in vitro, having the ability to differentiate into adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic lineages, and therefore Inner cambium layer has a great influence on bone remodeling and healing in cases of bone fractures and craniofacial bone injuries Debnath et al. revealed that, unlike bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs), which are involved in endochondral ossification, P-SSCs directly differentiate into osteoblasts via an intramembranous pathway under normal physiological conditions in vivo. However, under pathological conditions, P-SSCs can acquire an endochondral osteogenic capacity after periosteal damage and participate in fracture healing and repair.
The periosteum may retain cell viability if handled properly and stored under appropriate conditions. It can remain viable for less than 1 hour in dry conditions; however, in moist conditions (e.g., saline-soaked gauze), viability may be maintained for up to 2-3 hours. Steiner and Ramp had reported up to 5H preservation in normal saline, Cryopreservation or storage in special preservation media can prolong viability for several days to weeks.
While with full thickness flap elevation, periosteum stripping and elevation from the cortical bone, then repositioned in situ, healing progresses predictably. Within just a few days, early reattachment begins thanks to fibrin deposition and cellular infiltration. By approximately two weeks post-surgery, a newly regenerated periosteal layer is established, complete with osteogenic cells and vascular networks, allowing normal bone-healing activity.
Several studies have examined the biological potential of the periosteum in regenerative contexts. Gamal and Mailhot reported superior clinical and radiographic results using marginal periosteal pedicle grafts (MPP) as guided tissue membranes for treating proximal intrabony defects compared to open flap debridement. Later, Gamal et al. observed coarse-fibered woven bone and cementum-like tissue formation in histological samples 9 months after using MPP.
Ghallab et al. also confirmed that autogenous pedicled periosteal grafts were as effective as bioresorbable collagen membranes in improving clinical and radiographic outcomes for intra-bony periodontal defects Puisys et al. Clinically evaluated connective tissue grafts from the tuberosity for increasing soft tissue thickness and keratinization in edentulous mandibles. They found that keratinization of non-keratinized mucosa was more pronounced in partial-thickness flap groups.
Fickl et al. examined the effect of flap thickness on bone loss and reported that partial-thickness flaps, although not preventing bone loss, resulted in less bone loss compared to full-thickness flaps Mounir et al. Similarly had reported reduced marginal bone loss in maxillary ridge-splitting procedures using split-thickness flaps compared to full-thickness flaps.
To our knowledge, the technique of using a split-thickness flap with a guided bone lid approach for managing mandibular pathosis is novel. Based on the periosteum's unique role in osteogenesis and regeneration, its preservation by keeping it attached to the bone lid during temporary removal may enhance healing. This technique requires investigation, particularly in the context of avoiding periosteum stripping and maintaining lid vascularity
- Conditions
- Mandibular Diseases, Guided Surgery, Guided Surgery Accuracy
- Being tested
- computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch
- Keywords
- buccal bone lid, split thickness flap, computer guided surgery, mandibular pathosis, impacted tooth
- Medical subject headings
- Mandibular Diseases, Tooth, Impacted
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuchProcedure or surgery
- After anesthesia administration, a split thickness flap will be elevated.
- Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position.
- Periosteal incision will be performed following the external profile of the surgical guide.
- The guide will be removed and minimum periosteal reflection will be done.
- The guide will be placed again and the bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using piezoelectrical device.
- The guide will be removed again, and the bone lid will be completed and detached with its attached periosteum.
- The bony lid with its attached periosteum will be saved in saline solution until fixation.
- Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw.
- Suturing with primary closure will be obtained.
- Immediate post-operative CBCT will be taken
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| computer guided full thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis | Active comparator | * After anaesthesia administration, a full-thickness flap will be elevated with one or two releasing incisions.
* Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position.
* The bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using a piezoelectrical device.
* The guide will be removed, and the bone lid will be completed and detached.
* The bony lid will be saved in saline solution until fixation.
* Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw.
* Suturing with primary closure will be obtained.
* Immediate post-operative CBCT will be taken Receives: Procedure: computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch |
| computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis | Experimental | * After anesthesia administration, a split-thickness flap will be elevated.
* Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position.
* Periosteal incision will be performed following the external profile of the surgical guide.
* The guide will be removed, and a minimum periosteal reflection will be done.
* The guide will be placed again, and the bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using piezoelectrical device.
* The guide will be removed again, and the bone lid will be completed and detached with its attached periosteum.
* The bony lid with its attached periosteum will be saved in saline solution until fixation.
* Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw.
* Suturing with primary closure will be obtained. Receives: Procedure: computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
• bone defect filling
bone healing will be measured with Cone beam CT
Measured: 6 months
Secondary outcomes (3)
• Intra-operative time
Measured: intra operative time needed for both techniques
• Pain
- Pain will be measured by visual analogue scale VAS with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating the most severe pain. Patients will be asked to score the pain based on severity on the first, third, and seventh days
Measured: first , third . 7th day post operative
• Accuracy of transfer of the cutting guide
- Guide/osteotomy accuracy in millimeters, by superimposing the preoperative virtual guide outline based on the preoperative Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT) and the immediate post operative actual osteotomy lines on postoperative CBCT
Measured: immediate post operative using the post operative CBCT
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Jan 2026
- Study startFeb 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completionFeb 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionApr 2027 (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 Mandibular DiseasesStudies 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
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ahmed Mohamed Salah Azab, Cairo University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07338136
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- omfs3-3-6
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 3 Jan 2026
- Last updated
- 15 Jan 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes
Publications
Sivolella S, Brunello G, Panda S, Schiavon L, Khoury F, Del Fabbro M. The Bone Lid Technique in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Scoping Review. J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 24;11(13):3667. doi: 10.3390/jcm11133667.
PubMed 35806950Mounir M, Beheiri G, El-Beialy W. Assessment of marginal bone loss using full thickness versus partial thickness flaps for alveolar ridge splitting and immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;43(11):1373-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.05.021. Epub 2014 Jun 25.
PubMed 24973295Khoury F, Hanser T. Mandibular bone block harvesting from the retromolar region: a 10-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 May-Jun;30(3):688-97. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4117.
PubMed 26009921Gamal AY, Mailhot JM. A novel marginal periosteal pedicle graft as an autogenous guided tissue membrane for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2008 Oct;10(4):106-17.
PubMed 19055224Fickl S, Kebschull M, Schupbach P, Zuhr O, Schlagenhauf U, Hurzeler MB. Bone loss after full-thickness and partial-thickness flap elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Feb;38(2):157-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01658.x. Epub 2010 Nov 30.
PubMed 21118288Degerliyurt K, Akar V, Denizci S, Yucel E. Bone lid technique with piezosurgery to preserve inferior alveolar nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Dec;108(6):e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.006.
PubMed 19913713Debnath S, Yallowitz AR, McCormick J, Lalani S, Zhang T, Xu R, Li N, Liu Y, Yang YS, Eiseman M, Shim JH, Hameed M, Healey JH, Bostrom MP, Landau DA, Greenblatt MB. Discovery of a periosteal stem cell mediating intramembranous bone formation. Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7725):133-139. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0554-8. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
PubMed 30250253Abu Hawa MH, Shehri Z, Alkhouri I. Comparison Between the Bone Lid Technique and the Traditional Technique in Surgical Treatment of the Posterior Mandibular Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cureus. 2022 Jun 22;14(6):e26223. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26223. eCollection 2022 Jun.
PubMed 35911276
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Jan 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Computer Guided Split Thickness Versus Full Thickness Flap Buccal Bone Lid Approach in Hard Mandibular Pathosis: Randomized Control Trial RCT
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07338136
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- omfs3-3-6
- Conditions
- Mandibular Diseases, Guided Surgery, Guided Surgery Accuracy
- Keywords
- buccal bone lid, split thickness flap, computer guided surgery, mandibular pathosis, impacted tooth
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 26 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Feb 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Apr 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Jan 2026 (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.
- Full thickness Buccal bone lid approach is well known and well reported technique with a superiority on preserving bone volume and better bone healing especially when done using piezoelectrical devices when compared to conventional technique for management of mandibular pathosis, however periosteum disturbance have a negative role regarding vascularity and bone healing, by comparing the split thickness VS full thickness flap design with buccal bone lid approach, this study will highlight if the periosteum preserved attached to the lid improve the healing on mandibular bony pathosis.
- Aim of the study: determine the effect of split thickness flap vs full thickness flap using a guided bone lid in hard mandibular pathosis in term of bone healing.
Detailed description
Mandibular cysts, tumors, and impacted teeth are common pathosis that affect the oral and maxillofacial region, causing bone resorption, swelling, facial asymmetry, infection, and influence quality of life. Such pathosis requires its removal surgically for the preservation of mandibular structure and to avoid complex complications.
Conventional technique for removal of these pathosis requires excessive bone removal with limited accessibility and carries a high possibility of injury to vital structures. On the other hand, the buccal bone lid technique, especially when combined with piezoelectrical devices, demonstrates superiority in preserving vital structures, improving visibility, and enhancing bone healing.
The buccal bone lid acts as a barrier against soft tissue invasion and a reservoir for osteoblasts, that's why it is considered a technique for guided bone regeneration.
Computer-guided surgery and 3d printing guides are essential tools in managing oral and maxillofacial lesion providing patient-specific solutions with high accuracy and predictable outcomes.
A scoping review identified a gap of knowledge regarding the effect of computer-guided surgery in the buccal bone lid technique.
The periosteum is primarily structured by two layers: a superficial outer fibrous layer composed of collagen fibers, elastic fibers, and fibroblasts, and an inner cambium layer rich in fibroblasts, osteoblasts, and a specific type of undifferentiated mesenchymal cells known as periosteal skeletal stem cells (P-SSCs) Shi et al. had reported that P-SSCs have been shown to exhibit pluripotency in vitro, having the ability to differentiate into adipogenic, chondrogenic, and osteogenic lineages, and therefore Inner cambium layer has a great influence on bone remodeling and healing in cases of bone fractures and craniofacial bone injuries Debnath et al. revealed that, unlike bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSCs), which are involved in endochondral ossification, P-SSCs directly differentiate into osteoblasts via an intramembranous pathway under normal physiological conditions in vivo. However, under pathological conditions, P-SSCs can acquire an endochondral osteogenic capacity after periosteal damage and participate in fracture healing and repair.
The periosteum may retain cell viability if handled properly and stored under appropriate conditions. It can remain viable for less than 1 hour in dry conditions; however, in moist conditions (e.g., saline-soaked gauze), viability may be maintained for up to 2-3 hours. Steiner and Ramp had reported up to 5H preservation in normal saline, Cryopreservation or storage in special preservation media can prolong viability for several days to weeks.
While with full thickness flap elevation, periosteum stripping and elevation from the cortical bone, then repositioned in situ, healing progresses predictably. Within just a few days, early reattachment begins thanks to fibrin deposition and cellular infiltration. By approximately two weeks post-surgery, a newly regenerated periosteal layer is established, complete with osteogenic cells and vascular networks, allowing normal bone-healing activity.
Several studies have examined the biological potential of the periosteum in regenerative contexts. Gamal and Mailhot reported superior clinical and radiographic results using marginal periosteal pedicle grafts (MPP) as guided tissue membranes for treating proximal intrabony defects compared to open flap debridement. Later, Gamal et al. observed coarse-fibered woven bone and cementum-like tissue formation in histological samples 9 months after using MPP.
Ghallab et al. also confirmed that autogenous pedicled periosteal grafts were as effective as bioresorbable collagen membranes in improving clinical and radiographic outcomes for intra-bony periodontal defects Puisys et al. Clinically evaluated connective tissue grafts from the tuberosity for increasing soft tissue thickness and keratinization in edentulous mandibles. They found that keratinization of non-keratinized mucosa was more pronounced in partial-thickness flap groups.
Fickl et al. examined the effect of flap thickness on bone loss and reported that partial-thickness flaps, although not preventing bone loss, resulted in less bone loss compared to full-thickness flaps Mounir et al. Similarly had reported reduced marginal bone loss in maxillary ridge-splitting procedures using split-thickness flaps compared to full-thickness flaps.
To our knowledge, the technique of using a split-thickness flap with a guided bone lid approach for managing mandibular pathosis is novel. Based on the periosteum's unique role in osteogenesis and regeneration, its preservation by keeping it attached to the bone lid during temporary removal may enhance healing. This technique requires investigation, particularly in the context of avoiding periosteum stripping and maintaining lid vascularity
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| computer guided full thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis | Active comparator | Procedure: computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch* After anaesthesia administration, a full-thickness flap will be elevated with one or two releasing incisions. * Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position. * The bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using a piezoelectrical device. * The guide will be removed, and the bone lid will be completed and detached. * The bony lid will be saved in saline solution until fixation. * Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw. * Suturing with primary closure will be obtained. * Immediate post-operative CBCT will be taken |
| computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis | Experimental | Procedure: computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch* After anesthesia administration, a split-thickness flap will be elevated. * Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position. * Periosteal incision will be performed following the external profile of the surgical guide. * The guide will be removed, and a minimum periosteal reflection will be done. * The guide will be placed again, and the bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using piezoelectrical device. * The guide will be removed again, and the bone lid will be completed and detached with its attached periosteum. * The bony lid with its attached periosteum will be saved in saline solution until fixation. * Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw. * Suturing with primary closure will be obtained. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 40 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- No sex predilection.
- Age: 18 to 40
- mandibular intra-bony hard pathosis with a diameter ≥1cm with a buccal cortex thickness ≥1mm
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Systemic or local disease/ condition that could affect bone healing
- Diabetics
- patients on systemic corticosteroid
- chemotherapy
- radiotherapy
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 |
|---|---|---|
| computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch* After anesthesia administration, a split thickness flap will be elevated. * Guide will be seated according to the pre-planned position. * Periosteal incision will be performed following the external profile of the surgical guide. * The guide will be removed and minimum periosteal reflection will be done. * The guide will be placed again and the bone lid osteotomies will be prepared following the internal profile of the guide using piezoelectrical device. * The guide will be removed again, and the bone lid will be completed and detached with its attached periosteum. * The bony lid with its attached periosteum will be saved in saline solution until fixation. * Pathosis will be removed completely, and the lid will be returned and fixed to its original position using one or more screw. * Suturing with primary closure will be obtained. * Immediate post-operative CBCT will be taken | Procedure or surgery | computer guided full thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis, computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in hard mandibular pathosis |
Primary outcome
• bone defect filling
Time frame: 6 months
bone healing will be measured with Cone beam CT
3 secondary outcomes
• Intra-operative time
Time frame: intra operative time needed for both techniques
• Pain
Time frame: first , third . 7th day post operative
• Accuracy of transfer of the cutting guide
Time frame: immediate post operative using the post operative CBCT
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 15 Jan 2026.
- Background: PubMed 35806950Sivolella S, Brunello G, Panda S, Schiavon L, Khoury F, Del Fabbro M. The Bone Lid Technique in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Scoping Review. J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 24;11(13):3667. doi: 10.3390/jcm11133667.
- Background: PubMed 24973295Mounir M, Beheiri G, El-Beialy W. Assessment of marginal bone loss using full thickness versus partial thickness flaps for alveolar ridge splitting and immediate implant placement in the anterior maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014 Nov;43(11):1373-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.05.021. Epub 2014 Jun 25.
- Background: PubMed 26009921Khoury F, Hanser T. Mandibular bone block harvesting from the retromolar region: a 10-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 May-Jun;30(3):688-97. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4117.
- Background: PubMed 19055224Gamal AY, Mailhot JM. A novel marginal periosteal pedicle graft as an autogenous guided tissue membrane for the treatment of intrabony periodontal defects. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2008 Oct;10(4):106-17.
- Background: PubMed 21118288Fickl S, Kebschull M, Schupbach P, Zuhr O, Schlagenhauf U, Hurzeler MB. Bone loss after full-thickness and partial-thickness flap elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Feb;38(2):157-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01658.x. Epub 2010 Nov 30.
- Background: PubMed 19913713Degerliyurt K, Akar V, Denizci S, Yucel E. Bone lid technique with piezosurgery to preserve inferior alveolar nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Dec;108(6):e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.006.
- Background: PubMed 30250253Debnath S, Yallowitz AR, McCormick J, Lalani S, Zhang T, Xu R, Li N, Liu Y, Yang YS, Eiseman M, Shim JH, Hameed M, Healey JH, Bostrom MP, Landau DA, Greenblatt MB. Discovery of a periosteal stem cell mediating intramembranous bone formation. Nature. 2018 Oct;562(7725):133-139. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0554-8. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
- Background: PubMed 35911276Abu Hawa MH, Shehri Z, Alkhouri I. Comparison Between the Bone Lid Technique and the Traditional Technique in Surgical Treatment of the Posterior Mandibular Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cureus. 2022 Jun 22;14(6):e26223. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26223. eCollection 2022 Jun.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes
Related trials for Mandibular Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) Diagnostic Concordance Between Physiotherapist and Surgeon
Temporo-mandibular Dysfunction, Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD)
Recruiting
Comparing the Effectiveness of Online vs. Face-to-face Physiotherapy for Treating Temporomandibular Disorders
Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD), Orofacial Pain
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.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing computer guided split thickness flap for buccal bone lid approuch in people with Mandibular Diseases and Guided Surgery, run by Cairo University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 5 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 15 Jan 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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 Ahmed M. Salah Azab, bachelor degree (0201010392877, ahmed.azab@dentistry.cu.edu.eg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
• bone defect filling (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07338136, 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 15 Jan 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.