Active clinical trials for "Tooth Loss"

A Clinical Trial to study the effectiveness between two, tooth socket grafting materials namely, Freeze Dried Bone Allograft (human derived bone particles) and Leukocytic-Platelet Rich Fibrin (the patient's own centrifuged blood). The purpose of this study is to compare the effects (good and bad) of Bone Allograft to Platelet Rich Fibrin to see which material would be the most effective in maintaining the volume of the gum and bone of the jaw during the healing phase as well as minimizing the amount of pain and/or swelling following tooth extraction.

Tooth loss can in many cases be treated with an artificial titanium root (dental implant) and subsequent manufacture of a porcelain crown. After the tooth is lost bone resorption of the existing jaw bone often occurs making implant placement difficult. Therefore, bone augmentation is often necessary before implant placement. Six months after the bone augmentation has been performed, the implant can be inserted into the jaw bone and after additionally 6 months the final porcelain crown can be mounted. Reconstruction of the jaw bone is often done by harvesting a bone block from the patient's own jaw. The bone block is harvested typically from the posterior part of the lower jaw, where after it is placed and fixated by screws in the part of the jaw where the bone is missing. Finally, the bone graft is covered with artificial bone substitute and a collagen membrane. Recent studies have suggested that adding platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) membranes will have an advantageously effect in reconstruction of the jaw bone and bone healing. PRF membranes are derived from a blood sample of the patient and has been introduced to accelerate soft tissue as well as bone healing. No comparative studies have been conducted in humans for the time being evaluating the effect of PRF in conjunction with bone augmentation. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare a control group with a test group in which the control group is treated in a standardized manner, while PRF is added to the bone graft in the test group. After 6 months of bone healing, a dental implant can be inserted in both groups using a standard technique. For the two groups, the following is examined: The final treatment outcome of the dental implant focusing on clinical outcome, radiologic outcome, aesthetic outcome, patient satisfaction. Bone changes over time with a focus on volume changes. In addition, focus on soft tissue healing. Bone healing assessed using bone biopsies taken in connection with the implant installation. All included patients is missing a tooth where bone augmentation is needed before an implant can be inserted. A general study is conducted and patients are randomly assigned to a control group (20 patients) and a test group (20 patients). The control group is treated with a standard bone augmentation procedure. This is done in local anesthesia, where initially a bone graft is removed from the back of the lower jaw. The gingiva corresponding to the toothless area is loosened and the bone graft is fixed with 2 titanium screws before being covered with a artificial bone substitute and a membrane to protect the bone graft during the healing period. The test group is treated in the same way, however, a PRF-membrane is used instead of the bone substitute material and the membrane. The PRF-membrane is prepared by taking a blood sample from the arm (80 ml) as with a regular blood sample. The blood is centrifuged, which transforms the blood into a platelet-rich membrane. Thus, the membrane is produced 100% natural without any additives. However, the membranes contain growth factors that have the potential to promote mucosal and bone healing. In both groups, common penicillin (Amoxicillin / Clavulanic acid, 1000/250 mg) and painkillers (Ibuprofen, 400 mg x 4, supplemented with Panodil 1000 mg x 4) are given before surgery. After six months, the dental implant is inserted using standard procedure in both groups. The gingiva is set aside and perpendicular to the bone grafted area, a cylindrical bone tissue biopsy (2 mm in diameter, approximately 8 mm long) is taken containing the applied bone graft and the original jaw comb (for study 3). Then the previously inserted 2 titanium screws are removed and the implant is inserted. After another six months, the final porcelain crown is made. The implant is exposed and a healing cap is applied. After 2-3 weeks, the gum is healed, after which the final impression is made to the crown, which the patient will have installed 1-2 weeks after. The bone augmentation procedure, the implant installation and manufacturing of the porcelain crown are characterized by minimal risks and complications. In bone augmentation, there is minimal risk of altered sensation similar to the lower lip. It is typically of a temporary nature but can be permanent in very rare cases. The implant operation, including subsequent crown manufacturing, is performed in both groups by a standardized procedure, which is also characterized by minimal risk of side effects and complications. Thus, numerous studies have shown that implant treatment is characterized by a high implant survival of approx. 95% after 10 years. As part of the treatment, a total of 3 scans of the jaw (for study2) as well as 3 ordinary dental films are made for assessment of the jaw bone volume and as a control of the bone around the implant. This radiation dose equals approximately 60 days of background radiation in Denmark.

Until now, limited research has observed the stability of photo functionalized sandblasted acid-etched (SLA) titanium implants. The study includes a sample size of sixty otherwise healthy patients with implant replacement, comparing nonirradiated, irradiated UVA and UVC titanium implants. It was an interventional study with a sample size divided into three groups using simple randomization. Patients with nonirradiated dental implants make the control group A with UVA and UVC dental implants forming groups B and C, respectively. Before functional loading, implant stability was measured on days zero and eight weeks. SPSS 26.0 is used for data analysis. The data for implant stability quotient (ISQ) levels and osseointegration speed index (OSI) were presented as mean ± SD for each group. The effect of UVA and UVC on ISQ2 compared with the baseline ISQ was done by applying multiple simple regression analysis models, whereas the distinction between UVA and UVC was made through a t-test. p ≤ 0.05 was kept statistically significant. The implants irradiated with UVA significantly affected ISQ levels compared to other groups.

BACKGROUND Tooth loss impairs the OHRQoL. Dental implants have expanded treatment options of edentulous patients and improved their OHRQoL, however, in the posterior maxillary sextants the possibility to place implants of desired length and diameter could be limited. lSFE and tSFE represent two surgical options to vertically enhance the available bone in the edentulous posterior maxilla. Invasivity, relevant postoperative discomfort, high costs, and long times needed for the finalization of the prosthetic rehabilitation, however, strongly limit the indications of lSFE and support the need for less traumatic procedures with similar clinical effectiveness and reduced morbidity. In 2008, the investigators proposed a user-friendly, safe, predictable and effective minimally-invasive procedure for tSFE, namely the Smart Lift technique. AIMS/OBJECTIVES The general aim of the present project is to validate the Smart Lift technique as a simplified and minimally-invasive procedure for the implant-supported rehabilitation of patients with edentulous, atrophic maxillary posterior sextants. METHODS In a multicenter RCT study design, the reconstructive (clinical) and patient-centered outcomes of tSFE performed according to the Smart Lift technique will be compared with those of conventional lSFE. EXPECTED RESULTS The Smart Lift technique should allow for a significant reduction of treatment time, post-surgery complications and costs and an increase in the satisfaction perceived by the edentulous patient with implant-supported rehabilitation, while maintaining a clinical efficacy as well as a similar or lower morbidity and discomfort when compared to lSFE. In other words, the investigators expect that more favorable risk-benefit and cost-utility ratio, as well as a better performance in terms of pain, comfort, physical, social and psychological effects of oral health, and issues concerning the OHRQoL, will be observed for the Smart Lift technique compared to lSFE. List of Acronyms (in alphabetical order) OHRQoL: Oral Health - Related Quality of Life lSFE: sinus floor elevation with a lateral approach RCT: randomized controlled trial tSFE: sinus floor elevation with transcrestal approach

The present study tested the hypothesis that Platform Switching (PS) and Regular Platform (RP) implants would have different outcomes in the bilateral single tooth replacements against the alternative hypothesis of no difference.

This study compares two ways of placing a dental implant on the day of tooth extraction. One method will place a additional bone graft (derived from bovine bone) and the other group will not have the graft placed. Both groups will be restored at the same time with an immediate crown. The investigators will be researching and comparing the changes in gum level that occur after each surgical method, as well as changes in jaw width where the implant is placed. The investigators will enroll 16 patients per group. The patients will be followed for 3, 6, and 12 months post-immediate implant placement to observe healing.

An important result of healing after tooth extraction is a reduction in dimensions of the remaining bone at that site. This reduction of bone volume precludes successful restoration of the space using a dental implant. Bone augmentation has shown promise in clinical reports to reduce this loss of bone volume, thus allowing implant placement and restoration. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of guided bone regeneration around dental implants placed in fresh extraction sockets.

Tooth replacement is a significant issue in the World and while dental implants and conventional bridges have been used to replace missing teeth, dental implants are too expensive for many and conventional dental bridges are destructive to supporting tooth tissue. Resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) are a conservative and cost effective replacement option that involves minimal tooth preparation, leaving the majority of the tooth intact. They are secured in place with an adhesive cement, which is bonded to the outer enamel layer. Clinical audit of these prostheses at the University of Hong Kong shows two-unit RBBs to have some of the highest success rates in the dental literature for the replacement of missing premolar and incisor teeth. However, for the replacement of molar teeth, two-unit RBBs are not performed, as established protocol and recognised texts contraindicate their use due to concerns with tipping or drifting of supporting teeth. Replacement of a single missing molar tooth can be with a three-unit, fixed-fixed (single-piece casting) or three-unit, fixed-movable (two-part casting). However, the fixed-fixed option has a higher debond failure rate than two-unit RBBs and therefore, at this centre, a modified, 3-unit fixed-movable design is used. This two-part casting allows for minor, independent movements of the supporting teeth and thereby aims to reduce stresses between them and, similarly, reduce de-bonding forces. This has the potential for greater longevity and easier long-term maintenance as if the major part of the bridge debonds it can be recemented. The aim of this unique study is to compare 2-unit and 3-unit RBBs for the replacement of single missing molar tooth in a randomized clinical trial. These two designs will be clinically evaluated at 6 months , 1 year, 2 years and 3 years to observe the outcome measures. The primary outcome will examine the success of the dental prostheses with respects to the need of any clinical intervention to repair or remediate the RBB or supporting tooth. Minor outcome measures will examine fatigue or damage to the prosthesis, changes in bone support, pulpal or periodontal health or tooth mobility. Patient satisfaction and quality of life evaluation of the dental prostheses will also be examined. Will 2-unit RBBs offer patients a simpler, cheaper, and successful option over current designs? This has not been previously reported.

IBD patients have a higher risk of oral diseases that affect the oral mucosa, the teeth and the tooth supporting tissues. These conditions are often associated with pain, bleeding and impaired masticatory function which may have an impact on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). However, few studies have investigated the self-evaluation of oral quality of life in IBD patients. The rare existing studies focus on very specific patients (elderly patients, patients with stomas) and do not use validated tools for the evaluation of OHRQoL. We also lack data on the effect of treatments such as immunosuppressants and type of IBD on OHRQoL. The aim of this study is to (i) compare oral quality of life in a cohort of IBD patients versus non-IBD patients and (ii) explore potential factors that influence oral quality of life in IBD

PURPOSE The purpose of this case series is to clinically, radiographically and histologically evaluate the treatment of dehiscence defects in extraction sockets using a minimally-invasive GBR technique that involves the application of a particulate bone allograft and a non-resorbable PTFE membrane. METHODS Subjects with single-rooted teeth indicated for extraction and interested in future implant therapy for tooth replacement will be recruited on the basis of an eligibility criteria. A buccal or lingual dehiscence defect must strongly be suspected or confirmed upon clinical examination in order for the subject to qualify for study inclusion. A cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) scan of the arch containing the tooth to be extracted will be obtained prior to tooth extraction. Following minimally invasive tooth extraction and debridement, the socket will be evaluated to verify the presence of a dehiscence defect affecting at least 50% of the bony plate height. After creating a soft tissue 'pouch' using tunneling instruments, a non-absorbable dense-PTFE (dPTFE) barrier membrane that will be trimmed to a size and shape that would allow for complete extension over the existing defect will be tucked between the mucosa and the alveolar bone. Then, the extraction socket will be grafted with particulate allograft and the access to the socket will be sealed with an extension of the membrane and an external cross mattress suture. Subjects will be recalled at 1, 2 and 5 weeks to monitor healing and assess the level of discomfort using a visual analog scale at the end of each visit. At the 5-week visit, the membrane will be gently removed and the exposed area will be left to heal by secondary intention. At 20 weeks after tooth extraction a second CBCT will be obtained to radiographically evaluate the site for implant placement. Bone volumetric reconstructions of the alveolar ridge at baseline and at 20 weeks will be made using the CBCT data to assess changes affecting the bone housing. If the site has healed adequately, implant placement will be planned at 24 weeks after tooth extraction. A bone core biopsy will be obtained at the time of implant placement in order to histologically analyze the characteristics of the grafted substrate. Upon implant placement with primary stability a healing abutment will be placed and sutures will be given to achieve primary wound closure, as necessary. Subjects will return for the final study visit at 2 weeks following implant placement to evaluate the healing prior to being referred back to the restorative dentist.